Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talal Malik (entrepreneur)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talal Malik (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

CEO of some non-notable company. cited references are either namechecks in newspapers or self published articles in some newspapers. this is some promotional BLP on a subject which does not appear to meet GNG at all. Saqib (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you Saqib for highlighting issues, I neutralized the text removed self published articles, although they were only to highlight the contributions. Moreover, I added new sources from reliable sources. All sources cited are worlds top tier newspapers and media houses, please suggest and explain further issues if any. Thank you Kevin055 (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Kevin055 is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I am not satisfied. --Saqib (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is more satisfactory? I again added more from The Guardian, Arabian Business, a book citation and some other reliable sources. It easily passes WP:GNG and maybe more. All sources confirms his existence and notability within the region. Kevin055 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. --Saqib (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are different than existence, please don't focus on my word existence. The article you attached is totally opposite of the citations, please take some time to at least read them. Within a minute of my update you attached this article I think you should at least check and read the sources.

If these highly credible sources writing about someone and his contributions doesn't proves significant coverage then I guess thousands of articles present on Wikipedia should be deleted who doesn't cite any sources yet exist. These are the best reliable sources of that region that are most trusted. I expect you at least check sources instead of replying and denying my edits rights away. I really appreciate your efforts, please help me cover issues if any. Kevin055 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had duly checked each and every cited reference before nominating this article for deletion. While some of the newspapers are RS but none discuss the subject in depth and in-detail.--Saqib (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Google search on individual demonstrates GNG here. Article can be expanded as over 19 links in references. Arabic links also can be added as well, based on King Salman of Saudi Arabia links, and photo too. --Simone2049 04:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC) — Simone2049 (talk • contribs) only made edits to this topic due to the sole engagement of one user, Saqib, but has indeed made other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You seems to have joined WP just a couple of days ago and you've already begin contributing to AfDs. Seriously? I repeated what I said above, cited references are either namechecks in newspapers or some unreliable self published sources such as LinkedIn.. There's no point in saying about the hits via Google search results. If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them. Where are Arabic links? share them here and try to establish the WP:N.. --Saqib (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, and let's focus on the articles with more deliberation, less haste. Article easily passes WP:GNG, as interviews, not namechecks, in order of references cited are The Guardian in UK, Financial Times in UK but on Saudi, and The National on China. 'Unreliable self-published sources' such as LinkedIn, only one reference to LinkedIn in article, though article has two direct references to Al-Arabiya profile, which is globally reliable and not-self published. In response to, 'If there are specific references you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them,' earlier view provided was 'Article can be expanded as over 19 links in references'. On Google, first page, third link shows another profile on Arab News, not included in article: http://www.arabnews.com/taxonomy/term/12386. On Arabic links, I don't speak Arabic - Elina might help as her native language. --Simone2049 08:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree GNG is not met. Guardian story only name check the subject and quote him. The story does not discuss about him at all. I cannot access FT because it require subscription but I'm sure it namecheck as well. Similarly, The National also namecheck the subject and quote him. This Al Arabiya reference is considered self-published and not reliable. This Arab News is not some profile at all. In-fact this is not a reference at all. It is a list of articles the subject has written for the publication and generally such kind of stuff we do not cite in our articles. I think you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:GNG. You're failed to convince me. Try again. --Saqib (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, would recommend more deliberation, and less haste, and less appeals to the stone. Guardian story is about the new Crown Prince in Saudi - it's an interview with subject specifically related to that, so not a namecheck. The Financial Times is a global top-tier newspaper, regardless of whether it can be accessed by subscription or not and therefore certainty should not be claimed, but firmly established. The National is an interview on China, which takes place at the global business and political forum, World Economic Forum. Recommended to read and understand opinion-editorial versus self-published [1]] as Al-Arabiya, like Arab News references, is not self-published as a blog, but an opinion-editorial page like Project Syndicate for more nuanced understanding of WP:GNG. Simone2049 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've made my points and I leave it upto the closing admin to decide whether the cited sources are enough to establish the WP:N or not. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, and as mentioned, think that the article is well-sourced as per WP:GNG, which exceeds WP:N description. On my earlier Arabic comment, this profile on the subject on al-Iqtisadi was shared with me kindly by an Arabic speaker. Al-Iqtisadi is owned by Haykal Media which publishes Harvard Business Review Arabia and also a Who's Who for the Arab World, which subject is in. I'll now defer to closing admin, too, based on existing and new material. Simone2049 (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat trivial coverage is not enough to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I feel like this nomination is wildly inappropriate. The sources already in the article are far more than enough to meet the GNG. User:Saqib even admits that they haven't read all the sources, but nevertheless are sure they're trivial in that they're "sure it namecheck as well."192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wildly inappropriate nom? Seriously ? I don't want to talk about your bizarre arguments all over the AfDs. And regarding this FT source, see what I found [2]. Just a namecheck, and Nothing significant. --Saqib (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are uniformly policy based, although I can understand how that might strike you as bizarre. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are numerous signs of undisclosed paid editing here. Can we please relist while I look into it more? SmartSE (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HorseManJack. SmartSE (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage in reliable sources is extremely brief, only mentioning him in passing. I have searched for other sources but have not found anything to indicate that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: sock checking
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment the CU came back negative, by I am 100% sure that the article was created for pay, making the !votes suspicious. SmartSE (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is definitely some shenanigans going on here. --Saqib (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how SmartSE may have inadvertently admitted his status as someone who solicits money to edit on Wikipedia, despite not being legally allowed to as an admin on Wiki, as his 100% claim is immediately suspicious. How only earth could he state he is 100% sure but then remain silent about this for a week and then only post it before the seven-day period on the AfD was up?. He was either solicited or wasn't. If he was solicited, he's just admitted contravening Wiki's rules as an admin. If he wasn't solicited, how is he 100% sure? I would recommend Spartaz investigates this as a matter of urgency. Look above to how there is only an 18 minute difference in SmartSE and former AfD frontman Saqib, - looks embarrassingly and amusingly highly co-ordinated. Shenanigans, indeed! Simone2049 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic stuff

}}

Note I was been in an accident so came here late. So, this is very shameful from such an experienced editors like Smartse and Saqib. All of their self assumptions and claims failed yet they are taking this way to personal. user:Smartse why you deleted my approved and reviewed article of Alpha1Corp? Have you ever read policies? It clearly indicates that A7 doesn't apply to such articles who are mentioned even in passing on reliable sources. Therefore, I request you to put and AFD on that if you are personally hurt from the creation of these articles and stop violating Wikipedia policies and respect good faith and don't act like a God. All your false allegations failed badly, Saqib is saying to Simone2049 that don't accuse him (on sock page) while he himself doing that. @Spartaz: Everything is pretty much clear here you relisted the AFD because of Sock investigation therefore, I request to close this AFD as keep. And help me retrieve my other article deleted by him illegally. Above all he speedy deleted A7 an approved article.

Also, investigate why Smartse jumped here and what is the connection between Saqib and him why they are violating Wikipedia policies and taking things personally. He is 12 year o;d user yet never read the policies like WP:SIGNIFICANCE he said it doesn't meet significance while it was. Please launch AFD, take it easy help new users learn and contribute. @192.160.216.52: I don't know who you are but I know you know policies more than these users here, please help. Should I seek help from the legal team or librarians? Their activities are suspicious and they are hurting the very cause of Wikipedia. Kevin055 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin055: Please read WP:AGF. Do not comment on other users or speculate about their motives - it is entirely uncalled for. The only relevant issue here is whether the person who is the subject of the article is notable or not. --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage in independent sources, only passing mentions in articles about other subjects. Even if the company he is the CEO of were notable, that would not affect his notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. (The company clearly isn't notable however, so that isn't a concern in any case.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Of the nine sources that I have access to, one is based on an interview with him, three report something that he has said, one reports that he "declined to comment", three merely mention him, and one does not mention him. Maproom (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to access the Financial Times article through work, so I can confirm that it is another instance of a brief mention of something he said, compressed into a short two-sentence paragraph (about 45 words in a 680-word article). --bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. I can find no article that discusses the man, just mentions, a quote and a declination to comment. Dbfirs 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. Look at the embarrassingly coordinated editing. With no delete votes on this subject in nearly a week on this page, suddenly three come along in the space of 26 minutes! First, bonadea posts at 15:42, then Maproom at 15:58, and then Dbfirs at 16:08. Three buses may come along at once, but not in 26 minutes, when they haven't been coming for a week! This is amusing, but it's now getting tedious. Simone2049 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not aware of Kevin055's post at the Teahouse that drew everyone's attention to the article? My purpose in looking at the article was to see whether Kevin and yourself and others were being unjustly treated, but I found no evidence. Dbfirs 05:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take that as a vindication. I was initially accused of being a sockpuppet, then when that was cleared, I was accused of being very effective at coordinated editing. Yet, to answer your question, I am completely unaware of the post at the Teahouse, so if I am coordinating editing, then it's abysmal, worse than that which others have been doing. Simone2049 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Dbfirs has guessed, my attention was drawn to the article by the posting to the Teahouse. To anyone familiar with Wikipedia's policy on notability, the article is a clear delete. Simone2049, what was it that drew your attention to the article or to this discussion? Maproom (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question and comment. So, if was a clear delete, why did it take a week for it to only have one delete advocate? Surely, by that token, it should have been a speedy delete? As for your question: I like AfD listings that I consider 'keeps' to include which include Peter Middlebrook, Karl-Erivan Haub, George Saghir, Nicolette Rankin, Raymone Bain, Tony Wood, Hassan Abdalla Talal Malik (entrepreneur), Siddiqui Memon and Valerie Mars. Top three picks to keep are Peter Middlebrook, Tony Wood and Nicollette Rankin. Two billionaires to keep are Karl-Erivan Haub and Valerie Mars, if only for scrutiny. The most amusing is Siddqui Memon but the biggest issue I have been involved in has been the story around Talal Malik (entrepreneur). It all started just from a one sentence 'Keep' on 15 April, to quite a big issue on this page, when in reality, I just posted one comment like I do on all AfDs I like. I've been subject to Ad Hominem attacks, subject to a sockpuppet investigation, being vindicated of that, then accused of coordinated editing, and then demonstrated to clearly not do that. What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that there is paid editing to actually delete, not keep, the article, for whatever reason, in order to avoid scrutiny. I think that is a red-flag in the same ways I think US billionaires like Valerie Mars or Syrian government advocates like George Saghir should also be subject to scrutiny with their levels of personal wealth.Simone2049 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant and weak delete None of the cited sources discuss the suibject in anything like the needed depth to establish notability. Quotes from him and interviews with him do not help. But given the kind of sources that have quoted him, I rather suspect that he is in fact notable, if only the correct sources can be found and cited here. I will reverse this view if such sources are brought to my attention. I also was attracted to this discussion by the Teahouse post, by the way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but casual namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires.
For my part, I'm also disturbed at the clear lack of good faith shown by the likes of Simone2049, and would be darkly amused at how readily she tosses out accusations at other editors but is shocked! shocked! that she's been challenged in return, if I hadn't seen such behavior at AfD about five hundred times before. For the record, Simone, of the seven editors advocating deletion, the least prolific editor among us has over two hundred times as many edits as you and Kevin have managed combined, and indeed I bettered your total in the last week, in be a light month for me, so you'll perhaps forgive me if I'm more likely to credit the experience and knowledge of editors with many years of proven editing behind them. Ravenswing 17:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to lack of good faith, and tossing out accusation: "I've been subject to Ad Hominem attacks, subject to a sockpuppet investigation, being vindicated of that, then accused of coordinated editing, and then demonstrated to clearly not do that." It looks like there is a consensus emerging to delete, which was the reverse of the first week of this article, and the sole voice to delete was the AfD nominator (who has subsequently disappeared). Better rather this time and energy was spent on improving entries like Peter Middlebrook and Valerie Mars. If you like darkly amusing: Siddiqui Memon. Simone2049 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to spend your time and energy in improving articles, feel free. So far, of your 56 live edits, only two are in article space, and those were changing the capitalization of words in the Middlebrook article. Ravenswing 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion - just added a missing 'the' to this article, which have avoided doing so previously, though a pet peeve of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone2049 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I've blocked Kevin055 for undeclared paid editing and spamming, and Simone2049 for likely meatpuppetry/coordinated editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are quote, dead link, quote, quote, quote, quote, list of forum participants, quote (as "McKinsey spokesperson"), and tangential reference in preamble. None of these indicate that the subject is notable nor do they support many of the assertions made in the article.--Rpclod (talk) 17:22, 24 April 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.