Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qasim Ali Shah (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 no consensus. The previous AfD was over 3 years ago, so can't really be considered as part of the discussion. The tone of the article is not in itself a reason to opt for deletion. After two relists and no further discussion, there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus at this time. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah[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)

Previously deleted at AfD and was speedied yesterday as WP:G11. This article is still a bit promotional but nothing that a neutral rewording couldn't sort. I'm still concerned about the notability of this person and, whilst there are plenty of refs, a closer analysis reveals some issues and I do not believe that this passes WP:GNG. Analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis - please note that I didn't and in fact couldn't analyse the first ref as it kept trying to force me to download this file. I'm not going to risk downloading a virus for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://thereader.pk/qasim-ali-shah-eminent-motivational-speaker/	Appears to be sponsored/promotional			✘ No
https://www.geo.tv/shows/jirga/282328-jirga-motivational-speaker-qasim-ali-shah-11th-april-2020			A TV interview with him	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/us/453376-in-conversation-with-qasim-ali-shah			A very short Q&A that doesn't support notability	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/743037-scholarships-for-uet-students				✘ No
http://www.qasimalishahfoundation.org/		Primary source		✘ No
https://images.dawn.com/news/1185978/twitter-rightfully-tells-qasim-ali-shah-that-women-are-more-than-just-wives-and-mothers		'Desk Report' article rather than from a professional journalist. The article is basically just a bunch of tweets. Nothing establishes notability.		✘ No
https://kun.uz/en/news/2019/02/19/pakistans-central-media-to-help-promote-namangan-regions-tourism-potential?q=/en/news/2019/02/19/pakistans-central-media-to-help-promote-namangan-regions-tourism-potential			No SIGCOV here	✘ No
http://punjabhec.gov.pk/news/visit-meeting-for-joint-collaboration-between-qasim-ali-shah-foundation-phec-for-training-program/			No SIGCOV here	✘ No
https://doorofawareness.org/board.html	Not independent - he is a member of this organisation			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep while it seems to be a promotional article and it's tone is not encyclopedic, the person still is notable I believe. The article can stay by stubifying with removal of promotional content. USaamo ^(t@lk) 14:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references show notability? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying in general that person erstwhile is notable in the country although the current version of the article seems promotional in it's tone. Deletion is not necessary, the best we can do with it is to stubify. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Spiderone and USaamo, subject article is not created with promotional intention. Being new-editor, myself is yet to learn how to use words/sentence in compliance with Wiki-ToS under your kind guidance. However, I respect your opinion being my seniors, therefore kindly highlight which words/sentences are objectionable for alteration/removal, thanks.U.J (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youjay878 - please see some of the comments that I have left on the article regarding unsourced statements and use of some sources that do not appear to be reliable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need strong sources to demonstrate notability, they are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - please have a look once again as I have pasted more as well as aligned some citations as per you requirement (Books ISBN & Radio Programms YouTUbe link) for your better understanding.U.J (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert - I am shocked to read your comment, Person is notable if you may please see above remarks of editor USaamo. I have not done research work with just 4 citation required for stub article. you can easily find him in provided 25 citations for you good-comfort level. He also does have 2.58 million YouTube subscribers.U.J (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

° I've revised my comment to vote as keep. The problem is with article which could be fixed but not the person's notability which I believe is quite notable. The best thing to do with the article is stubifying and removing all those unsourced information and make it's tone encyclopedic. Moreover the user who created the article seems to be a newbie so we could give it margin for that. USaamo ^(t@lk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although some of the article's sources aren't reliable and it may also be written in a promotional tone but the intent of creator isn't to promote the subject. The subject is enough notable in his homeland. The creator is newbie and they would need some time to familiarize themselves with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. By removing all the unsourced content and promotional material, it can be assessed as stub class article. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2021 (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.