Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid Malik

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. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Khalid Malik

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Khalid Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a run-of-the-mill UN bureaucrat. There is no substantive RS coverage on which to build an encyclopedic entry that adheres to WP's RS guidelines and NPOV guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Has not yet obtained significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. The following is all of the coverage I could find of Khalid Malik:
  • Quoted in NYT Opinion [1], WSJ [2] [3] (paywalled), china.org.cn [4], Inter Press Service [5], China Daily [6], estrategiaynegocios.net [7] (in Spanish), Excélsior [8] (in Spanish). These sources quote Malik to various extents; he is most extensively quoted in the first WSJ article, at three sentences.
  • Interviewed by The Asia Foundation [9], Deutsche Welle [10], Tianjin TV [11], Hub Culture [12], CGTN [13]
  • Minor coverage describing his book Why has China Grown So Fast for So Long in Dawn (newspaper) [14]
  • Review of the same book in the journal Economic Record [15] (paywalled; I was able to access) and Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics [16] (paywalled; I was not able to access)
  • Minor coverage of his role in a "Safe City projects" panel in The News International [17]
  • Non-independent coverage from in UN News and Pakistan Institute of Development Economics

I note that GNG coverage can come from NGOs (provided they are reliable and independent) in addition to news outlets or journals. Ultimately, I consider this coverage insufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Just quoting or interviewing the author of a report does not constitute significant coverage of the author. (However, Malik's book would meet WP:BOOKCRIT.) userdude 20:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC); edited 23:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. userdude 20:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment, It's pretty obvious from above sources he doesn't qualify WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. But I don't think he need WP:GNG for a page, as an expert in his field he does qualify 7P of the alternative criteria WP:PROF, which is enough to warrant a page. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. Poor sourcing and WP:PROMO feel. KidAd • SPEAK 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep — as per WP:NPROF. As explained by userdude his work, research and book are highly qouted by notable people, papers and Institutes, which means he qualify 7th point of WP:PROF, which is enough to warrant a standalone article about him. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Being quoted is not an indication that someone meets NPROF #7 - especially someone who is not an academic but a civil servant/manager. For one thing, you can't have an "academic capacity" if you're not an academic. On the GNG, I agree with userdude that the citations are not sufficient coverage of him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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.