Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Farooq Zahoor (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Farooq Zahoor

AfDs for this article:

[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)

At first look, the BLP appears notable. However, by evaluating the coverage, I'm unable to locate any reference that meets GNG. The sources largely rely on tabloid journalism Norwegian publications such as Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet where sources #1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are written by the same reporter (Rolf J. Widerøe). The rest of the sources include unreliable Pakistani publications, and *** sources such as source #17 per this which was added as an archived source. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Norway. Bosecovey (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This BLP meets the GNG due to the SIGCOV the subject has received. Dismissing all of this coverage as *** doesn't make sense by this newbie account and this appears to be an attempt to whitewash a BLP simply because the subject did not approve of it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I think it fails GNG, apart from the tabloid journalism which is not suitable for BLP that you've largely relied on while creating the article, all of the sources are trivial, non-independent and unreliable and if that were the only criteria it could have been kept even back in 2019. Can you take a look at the rules for trivial, especially routine coverage or those for independence and tell me which of the sources you posted meet those?

Could you clarify as well what do you mean by simply because the subject did not approve of it.? Which subject and how do you know that the subject did not approve of it? Bosecovey (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough media coverage in Norewegian media and books to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Also, he is the recipient of Hilal-e-Imtiaz which is enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. Gheus (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find online sources that mentioned that the subject of the article received Hilal-e-Imtiaz. He shouldn't pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC since the Norewegian media are tabloids. Bosecovey (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus Regarding the HI award, I think WP:TOOSOON applies here, as the source indicates he is scheduled to receive it on 23 March 2025. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. Regardless, he has received in-depth coverage like this due to his role in the Toshakhana reference case and has received other state awards as well including from the President of Equatorial Guinea. Gheus (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable on so many levels. Hilal-e-Imtiaz alone is enough to pass GNG not to mention all the *** cases. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibear47 Could you clarify the levels you're speaking about?

I can't find any reliable source online confirming that the subject of the article has received Hilal-e-Imtiaz, even though there is no limit to the number awarded and Hilal-e-Imtiaz is not considered a significant honor at Wikipedia.

I tend to consider the source that mentioned Hilal-e-Imtiaz (The Express Tribune) a non-independent source and seems like routine covering however it didn't say that he has received the award. Bosecovey (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some do not see any activity that is against Wikipedia's policy and should be kept WP:ANYBIO. Cassigad (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI has been filed against this editor for WP:BE. If proven, their vote should be removed. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The use of a tabloid journalism source like Verdens Gang by an experienced editor raises a valid concern; however, the individual still meets the WP:GNG criteria.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown, I’m not the only one using this source. If you consider it unreliable, please take it to WP:RSN. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of publication's format (i.e. tabloid format or broadsheet), both journalists, Hans Petter Aass and Rolf J. Widerøe, are well-regarded in Norway and have received reputed awards like SKUP Award and Den store journalistprisen. I think we should create articles about them on English Wikipedia as well for their investigative journalism. Gheus (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown According to Wikipedia:RSP#Tabloids They often repeat unverified rumors, have questionable fact-checking, and are often unsuitable for information about living people. Some sources are reliable but still do not help with notability, and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and still fail GNG.

It seems that the reporter writing for Verdens Gang and Aftenbladet, who has covered this topic extensively, has a clear conflict of interest. This shouldn't raise any valid concerns I guess. Bosecovey (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Papers that are in tabloid format aren't unusable. Tabloid journalism does not equal tabloid format. I don't know much about VG, but it seems to be widely used both on enwiki and Norwegian wiki. I can't find any obvious concerns about its journalism from a brief search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verdens Gang is not a tabloid newspaper in the Sun/News of the World/New York Post/Bild sense of the word. Its journalists have won the investigative journalism prize time and time again. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage about him with detailed biographical information in The Herald (Pakistan) [1], in-depth coverage by Stein Morten Lier in his book, Mafia i Norge, and coverage about his *** in Africa [2]. This is way above the threshold of WP:SIGCOV. Gheus (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norwegian media is covering him for ages. ([3], [4], [5]) in Finansavisen; ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) in Nettavisen; ([11], [12], [13]) in Dagens Næringsliv; ([14], [15], [16]) in Altaposten; and ([17]) in Drammens Tidende. Gheus (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable on some parts

Farsadx (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pakistani news sources are also enough to keep this page.--Gul Butt (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2024 (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.