Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not to be that guy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is an essay, not actually a policy. Anyhow, it seems like the most in-depth analysis of sources presented states that they are all not substantive or reliable enough and the sole counterarguments presented apparently did not convince anyone. So this is a delete case per the notability guidelines and also per BLP policy concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Farooq Zahoor

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS Tramontinaberbera (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has accrued coverage (both significant and tangential) in a number of reliable sources; this can easily be seen with a select google searches like [1]. Notably, the Norwegian newspaper/tabloid published several stories [2] [3] regarding the subject, and this coverage in turn generated coverage [4]. Regardless, AfD is not cleanup, and the sources available online (I am guessing a WP:BEFORE check was not undertaken before this nomination) make a strong case for the subject meeting both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy delete - Does not pass notability and seriously violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. A BLP can not be written in this tone. Created by the paid blocked editor Bernie44. Moreover all or most of the controversial information about the person are from a newspaper called Verdens Gang seems to have a personal clash with the guy. All of the sources violate WP:RS. - ToT89 (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the guy in question is not a Norwegian. He is Ghanaian. This article does not maintain Wikipedia standard in any way. I am surprised to see that this article is live in Wikipedia for two years. - ToT89 (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToT89: see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. if the article violates WP:BLP, it can be altered to address that, and other errors; this does not justify the deletion of a notable topic, nor is it the purpose of AfD. As far as your comment about "all of the sources [violating] WP:RS"... what? Are you sure about all of them? The article as it stands cites articles from The Statesman Online, Deseret News, Independent Online, and Verdens Gang. If you consider articles from these sources to be unreliable, the burden is on the questioning editor to have the source struck down as unreliable at WP:RSN. In addition, please note that AfDs judge the notability of the article subject, and so must consider all potential sources before making a decision on the subject meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret News article does not even mention the guy in question.

Independent Online trivial mention of the subject, not in-depth coverage.

The Statesman Online No mention of the subject.

Ghana Web No mention of the subject.

Myjoyonline No mention of the subject.

All of the controversial information in the article come from the allegations raised by Verdens Gang. Other sources just quote Verdens Gangs allegations. These sources are not enough to pass him WP:N. And also it's contents violate WP:BLP seriously. - ToT89 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, in a fashion; the Desert, Statesman, and Myjoy sources are used in the article to cite information related to a company Zahoor was affiliated with, as should be the case with a BLP. But as for the others, why should the multiple Ghanaweb sources referencing the subject (both in and not-yet included) be discarded, or the large amount of coverage VG has generated? Nor was VG alone in its efforts; per this article [5] (currently not cited in the article) in The Namibian, said newspaper assisted VG in its research. This seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO; indeed, several news articles have covered VG's coverage of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Can't seem to find consensus on simple facts such as the nationality of this guy. Some say Norweigan, some say Pakistani, some say Ghanian. This doesn't qualify as an Encylopedia entry at all. Origins of information come from one source, which seems more like an opinon piece. Hardly meets sourcing guidelines required to be on the Wikpiedia mainspace. --50.253.53.121 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I keep quoting this policy, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If there are doubts about the subject's nationality, that should be addressed, but such an issue has nothing to do with notability. Also, noting that this is this IP editors first ever edit, which seems a little off.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. All allegations can not be supported by reliable sources and when those allegations are gone, the topic fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Plaxie (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.