Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazhar Majeed

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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhar Majeed[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BLP1E, coverage of the event is also here: Pakistani_cricket_team_in_England_in_2010#Betting_allegations. Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He owns a minor football club. [1] And he appears to invested a fair bit of money in it. [2] He owns a mid-sized property company. [3]

Keep This is turning into a major worldwide story that will rock the entire sport and could go back several years. He is also the agent of several players, has confessed to using Croydon Athletic Football Club to launder money and has a very suspicious track record as a director of companies. There is a good chance that the future of the players involved will be seriously affected by this and it appears Majeed is the instrumental figure behind it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.230.19 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Majeed is central to a major furore in world of cricket, there are plenty of articles and reports about his role that show he is central to this story. Plus it seems that more revelations/allegations are to follow.

Keep While normally, I would not consider the events above to be worthy of a BLP1E, the allegations coming out that he was also involved in match-fixing a match between Pakistan and Australia [4] and possibly spot-fixing matches during the World Twenty20 tournament, means the article passes BLP1E, and should stay. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't take a genius to realise how much this man has been in the press lately. Mar4d (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Involved in a major controversy which was rocked the sport. The controversy has had major international coverage and could date back to over 82 matches Pakistan have played in all forms of the game. Per WP:CRIC I would say he is notable enough to have a stand alone article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E as per nomination. In the news ≠ notable for encyclopedic purposes, especially while no charges have been laid (hasn't he been bailed without charge?) and certainly no convictions recorded. Everything of note in this article could be in an article on the event. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lay-down and very prejudicial BLP1E. Everything of relevance can be covered proportionately in an event or general match fixing article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E/nom. As of now, all the article consists almost entirely of allegations (albeit filmed by NOTW) of one incident. Incidental mentions when players thank him or his brother at public events (as their agent) do not count towards notability. Any aspect related to his involvement in the match fixing incident can be covered in that article, without need for a separate one. I wouldn't be opposed to a protected redirect either. —SpacemanSpiff 10:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about all the publicity which has surrounded Majeed, regardless of allegations? He's already been cast in dozens of news channels and even front pages of reputable newspapers. Don't see how he is not notable now by any standards. Mar4d (talk) 11:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) news coverage does not auto-establish notability and b) I can't find anything in the news about him other than this incident. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up, click provided links. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, purchasing the football club, maybe, but it is quite tenuous. The betting scam is a vastly bigger part of his notability (and w/o it the club ownership would be trivial)--Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If he is found guilty, we can have an article per WP:PERP criterion 3. Otherwise, it would be best simply to mention him in the article on the scandal. Claritas § 10:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm gonna say Keep by a razor's edge.~~ While all the literal points about WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP are applicable, I think a little foresight is called for. The points about there being just allegations and no conviction yet, a criminal investigation and judicial proceeding could and prolly will take 1-2 years to complete, if at all - it seems silly for Wikipedia to delete this article and wait for the final verdict, while millions already draw their own, and then re-create. That ambiguity itself makes it important to know about the man at the center of it all, as opposed to being a plain-and-simple bookie caught in an open-and-shut case. What makes a difference is his long-term legit involvements with Pakistani players and co-ownership of a football club - involvements of some importance in the sporting world. There is also insight into the inner workings of match-fixing through this man's biography. Finally, HE was the target of a major sting operation by a major news organization, not the players themselves. Whether guilty or innocent, or both, this episode will likely be always remembered as the "Mazhar Majeed scandal" or something. Shiva (Visnu) 03:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I think the Essjay controversy was somewhat similar. Shiva (Visnu) 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made is that, at this time, he is not notable outside the event - so per WP:BLP1E we should stick to an article about the incident. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a separate criminal investigation into suggestions that he used Croydon Athletic F.C. for laundering tens of millions of pounds. [5] See also [6]

@Errant: I wasn't suggesting the consideration of another article. And the Essjay controversy was an example of someone not notable outside the event (which was, IMO, quite minor compared to this). Shiva (Visnu) 11:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Essjay controversy did not involve the President of Pakistan. [7]

I've created the article 2010 Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy. Upon reflection on the thoughts expressed here, I change my opinion to merge Mazhar Majeed with this new article. Shiva (Visnu) 00:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, the match-fixing and spot-fixing allegations are two events, not one, as they refer to totally different games with totally different natures. Add in the coverage he received back in July 2008 as Croydon Athletic owner ([8], [9]) and in July when they won their league ([10]), and it becomes near impossible to see how this falls under BLP1E. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest redirect to 2010 Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy. The danger here is that all the coverage is adverse and we need to have a proper rounded article for a person subject to this level of controversy. I'd say this is BLP1E material but this is clearly too high profile and significant to fall into that category but aggregating all the material in the related article will prevent this being a negative BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage of his buying a football team and then winning the league, which is not negative. There is also coverage of his real estate activities that are not negative. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge As per Shiva. With him involved in a few things relating to this, there was no single article suitable for putting it all in one place, with the new article about the whole thing, that'd be a suitable place to also mention croydon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.218.90 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even considering BLP, the sources are certainly adequate, and the matter relates directly and obviously to his notability DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Siding with the fact that this story is not notable for an encyclopedia, I would venture to say that the outcome could eventually be listed in a history of Cricket section (or something similar to List of cricket incidents, though, at a glance, I personally doubt the encyclopedic nature of that article, too). Mazhar's page has several Special:WhatLinksHere/Mazhar_Majeed but they actually don't amount to much in the way of saving it from deletion. -Paulmnguyen (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (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.