Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qassim Afzal (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. Although the keep !voters have been very vocal in this debate, none of them actually provided a strong counter-argument to either the nomination or the delete !votes- for example some arguments didn't develop beyond "it's notable" while others went with "lots of sources" type arguments, but the sources that emerged were either local newspapers or LibDem and UK Parliament publications, of which the former are of questioanble reliability and the altter don;t verify basic biographical information so, with some reluctance, I'm closing this a delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Afzal[edit]

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

Article on non-notable local councillor who has not held any appropriate national or sub-national office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. No coverage in third party sources independent of the subject. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous news sources covering the political activities of this politician over many years. This is a repeat nomination which fails to bring anything new to the discussion and so is disruptive per WP:DEL and WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something this has only been nominated once before - and that was way back in August 2005, nearly 5 years ago. You say there are numerous news sources covering him. Where are they? Certainly not in the article where they should be per WP:RS so your argument is basically a lots of sources fallacy and tantamount to a KEEP! vote. Valenciano (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are readily visible in the search links above and I just added one to the article. Please tell us what you have done to observe the proper preliminaries of WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added one yes, but did you read things like WP:NOTNEWS before adding it? Your ref like the others is a bog standard news story in the context of an election which he was unsuccessful in. It's an article about the election campaign, not about this individual. It doesn't cover him in the type of substantial detail needed to meet WP:GNG. So per numerous previous discussions and consensus at WP:POLITICIAN he's just an election candidate and therefore isn't notable. Valenciano (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS started as sensible guidance to avoid mundane stuff like weather reports. The naysayers at WP:NOT constantly try to expand their pet peeves but this is largely irrelevant to our work. The actual policy of Wikipedia may be seen from the main page where we have a section specifically devoted to news items. This currently contains details of a tropical storm, winners of a motor race, a song contest, an election result, a train derailment &c. The idea that all this should be moved to Wikinews is just not happening and so does not represent our consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:NOTNEWS is there to avoid mundane stuff, and the Birmingham Post article which you added as a ref is exactly that - one political party criticises another during the course of an election campaign and it gets reported in the local paper for that area. What's notable about that? So still we're left with the fact that the subject doesn't have the sort of in depth coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep (changed per sources below). Evidently notable, with plenty of sources about the subject along several years, as a trivial Gnews search shows. I endorse Colonel Warden comment: NOTNEWS is not a blanket that removes news sources from being reliable and useful in the context of the encyclopedia. Given that previous AfD was in 2005, when policies were different, I don't see the renomination as disruptive per se, but for sure the nom could have made some effort in WP:BEFORE. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which cover him in any detail or are even about him. This deals with a complaint he made in his context as a party spokesman. This is pay per view and seems to be about an election campaign. This seems to be about someone with the same surname. This one simply mentions that he's been selected as an election candidate (not notable) and the rest are just him speaking as a party spokesman, again not notable. So, sorry to correct you but the research was done and it involved looking a bit deeper than a "trivial Gnews search" which demonstrates that he clearly hasn't been covered in detail by multiple sources. Valenciano (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is a source about him, mentioning that he's been selected and speaking as a party spokesman. Both things are not notable per se, but it's an article about the subject, and this goes forward meeting WP:GNG. Here and here his declarations are reported in length. Here another full length article about him, in a fully different context than previously. Here another paragraph about him: why do you think it's another guy? Here his role in an international affair. Here coverage of his meeting with Pakistani president. Here another source that talks of him. Etc. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But almost all of that is routine coverage which simply establishes the fact that he is a politician/political spokesman. So routine news articles which simply mention that he has been selected to fight an election, which cover tasks which he's carried out as a local councillor etc don't meet notability guidelines, particularly those agreed at WP:POLITICIAN Most of the sources above which you cite are from his local paper in a subsection called Asian News, every local councillor will at one time or another get a quote in their local paper, past consensus has judged that local councillors aren't notable and for good reasons - there are millions of them. To answer your question this source which was on your gnews page, seems to be about someone with the same surname a Mohammed Azfal in a different political party. Valenciano (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "local councillor" that meets the Pakistani president, is involved in international relationships and whose declarations are reported in full length. What is linked above makes it clear that the politician passes WP:GNG without any problem. There are millions of local councillors, but this particular one is notable because he has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is our basic and golden standard of notability. About the link: Yes this is another Afzal, but this other one is about our Afzal. Perhaps I misread above, I thought you were saying the latter was not about Qassim Afzal. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability. per sourcing. etc etc..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See: WP:Politician: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability...." In fact Afzal has twice been an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament and once served as a councillor in the 96-member Manchester City Council, which is one of 10 boroughs compromising Greater Manchester. There is nothing notable in the article. TFD (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But here is not matter of "just being an elected local official": it is an elected local official with extensive sources coverage. See WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any articles about his time in council, just a mention that he was defeated in 2004. Not a single article is about him. His name did appear in the news when he ran for Parliament but that is true of all candidates for major parties. What is he notable for? TFD (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, did you open any of the links provided above? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did and I assure you that there is nothing notable about him. However, if you do not want to take my word for this, then please read them yourself. TFD (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I posted them, I know them. There are more than one article with full coverage of the person. See above. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this establishes notability. "...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". [1] Please provide one thing he has done that establishes notablity. TFD (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not trivial mentions. There are a couple of full articles where our guy is the one and only subject. This is more than what is requested by WP:GNG. We don't establish notability on the basis of what the guy has done, but on the basis of the secondary sources that talk about him. There are plenty. GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. , but we don't even need to claim that. [2], [3] are exclusively about the subject. [4], [5], [6] , [7] and [8] are not focused only of Mr.Afzal but talk about him extensively. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first article about Afzal is about his selection to run for parliament, and the third is a thumbnail sketch about him and other candidates. The other articles briefly mention activities carried out during his campaigns. Are you aware that newapapers regularly cover national elections, reporting candidates who have been selected and giving background descriptions of them? Do you know that minor policians are often mentioned in local and ethnic media when they meet foreign VIPs or help citizens with problems? Can you please tell me anything notable about this person, other than having received the same sort of coverage as other local councillors and prospective parliamentary candidates? TFD (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable != "standing above the crowd". Notable means having been the subject of significant coverage by third-party sources. If other candidates received coverage, they are notable too. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does he stand above the crowd of other local councillors and unsuccessful parliamentary candidates? TFD (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. The != symbol means "is different" . I will rewrite: Being notable does not mean "stand above the crowd". --Cyclopia ^talk 00:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another politician debate that touches on the difficult question of competing notability guidelines. WP:POLITICIAN would say he's not notable. The GNG would say he is. In my view (I stress in my view because people can legitimately disagree with this), these questions should be resolved by bearing two points in mind. First, they are only guidelines; neither takes precedence over the other. Secondly, both only confer presumptions not guarantees of notability and inclusion. In light of those two points, it is my view that we should balance the extent to which the subject meets one guideline against the extent to which he fails the other. He fails WP:POLITICIAN significantly. He passes GNG marginally if at all. Thus any presumption conferred by the GNG here is weak, and is rebutted by the subject's clear lack of notability according to the community's standards for members of his profession.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is insightful but it is mostly based on a false assumption. POLITICAN and GNG are not "competing" at all. WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right. (emphasis mine) - This means that the basic presumption is given by passing one of the guidelines. A subject can be notable by passing WP:POLITICIAN only and not WP:GNG, and viceversa. Also, the article doesn't seem in conflict with WP:NOT or WP:BLP, so I see no reason to rebuke the presumption. I disagree with the fact that GNG is passed marginally, given the number of sources about the subject presented above. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to lawyer on this too much - because I don't think there is a right or wrong answer - my attention is focused on the words "presumed" and "can also" above - ie can also does not mean "is notable".--Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Neutral The subject's notability is borderline at best. Many of the links above come from the same source: The Manchester Evening News. They are treated as a single source with regards to notability. Redirecting to a page about his political party or election would be prudent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dethlock99 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2010
Keep per Cyclopia Mar4d (talk) 11:06, 4 June 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.