Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mithaq Kazimi (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 delete. Sandstein 07:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithaq Kazimi[edit]

[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)

Article was deleted in November 2017. Cannot find significant independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources since then - WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REASONS NOT TO DELETE -

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Unknown Master (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

1) This article has existed and is about a notable person - founder of a film festival, a television channel and editor-in-chief of a major publication (media company).

2) Given the person is from countries with very little publication, in this case Afghanistan, there are not lots of sources, however the amount that is there is I think sufficient.

3) This article includes sources now from major publications, such as IMDB, TED, SCREENDAILY and at least 3 government publications.

4) There were no legitimate reasons initially for its removal and one person tagged it and with very little discussion it was removed.

5) Many such articles, which are based on foreign personalities get flagged and removed, which I don't think is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.183.145 (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@117.99.183.145: Well, as a response to your offered arguments, before providing my own !vote either way, I'd say the following things.

The article hasn't been nominated for deletion because the individual is fundamentally un-notable. In effect, if there is suitable notable sourcing, then this isn't a problem.
Issues of there being fewer sources to choose from (so appearing in any represents a higher % of actual notability) is of note, and obviously the fact you think there are sufficient is your justification for a Keep. However it would be far more helpful if you could point out the 2 sources that satisfy the nomination's concern - notably reliable sources that provide in depth coverage, not just mentions.
ImDB is neither reliable, nor spends more than 5 lines on the individual. TED is also only 5 lines, and is touting him as a speaker for them so clearly they can't be independent. The only Screendaily source I could find doesn't mention him at all. Government publications usually are pushing something (or dislike something) to mention individuals, but I'll read them all in depth before being able to decide.
As far as I can tell both in the previous AfD and the nomination here WP:SIGCOV - a lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources was presented, which is an accepted justification for removal. Individuals are free to either try and clean-up articles or nominate them directly for deletion, since an article is supposed to meet a minimum standard. With a living person there is more justification in nominating them. 5 people participated in the original AfD, which is more than most.
Removing articles with a lack of suitable sourcing is extremely agreed and underpins wikipedia since the start. In the sense that we probably remove a higher percentage of foreign creative articles you are probably correct, because it can be harder to get sources, you are no doubt correct. However other than bearing point 2 in mind, we either have to do that or ignore our sourcing requirements, which would make wiki much less reliable.
As a side note, this isn't technically speedy deletion - it has to take at least a week (speedy deletion is for copyright, attack etc etc)

Nosebagbear (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anybody else got a view?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should not have been recreated because the underlying reasons for deletion have not been rectified. He lacks WP:SIGCOV so he fails WP:GNG or any notability guidelines and many of the sources in the article are unreliable, such as Twitter or IMDB. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2018 (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.