Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaid Ali (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. bd2412 T 03:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaid Ali[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this was kept last time. This person easily fails WP:GNG as the majority of the coverage in the article is about his purported "Hollywood" movie offer which fails to explain its significance or its scope within the industry. He hasn't uploaded videos to his main channel in over three years, so there isn't anything he's done recently that can be added to save this page. A search of his name on Google finds questionable tabloid-like "reporting" of his actions in relation to his wife (aka WP:GOSSIP) and nothing else. Nihlus 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reasons as mentioned in the last Afd. Qualifies on WP:BASIC. Referred to in multiple RS as an internet sensation, the subject has been covered – or rather, headlined – in a plethora of reliable sources. Keeping up with Zaid Ali T, Zaid Ali T set to tie the knot, Zaid Ali T vs Hollywood, Zaid Ali says no to Hollywood and innumerable more. Celebs of course will get their own fair share of gossip; but one can't thereby ignore the notable material within the news coverage. Ranked amongst the top 7 must-follow Pakistani social media stars by ProPakistani news,[1] this is presumably a keep. Lourdes 15:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: Please explain how each of those tabloid journalism examples are reliable sources. They're all written under "News Desk" or "Entertainment Desk" and show signs of unreliable/biased sourcing for the material. One article is essentially a regurgitation of his social media. This page was also created by a paid editor (now banned), and his social media displays patterns of purchasing followers. See the trend? Nihlus 15:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nihlus. Hope you're doing well. I understand what you're saying. However, in my opinion, newspapers like The News on Sunday, The Nation, Dawn, Tribune et al are significantly reliable sources. If you read WP:CREATIVE ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [...] such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."), the subject's youtube channel and his various videos have been the primary subject of multiple independent articles, a very few which I have documented above. As an example, for your benefit, from the The News on Sunday, I have taken out all material that the source has covered on the subject and listed it at User:Lourdes/ZaidAli. I see close to 600 words in six paragraphs. This is significant. You'll find at least two or three paragraphs of significant coverage in all the other sources too. Celebrities might purchase followers and have paid editors creating their pages; I don't debate that. But that doesn't take away this subject's notability. Hope this provides the clarity of my stand. Warmly, Lourdes 01:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Unfortunately, telling me that they are "significantly reliable" does nothing to explain how they are reliable. Nihlus 05:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nihlus, hello again. It is my opinion that they are reliable, based on my reading of the content and the overall positioning of the publications. If you believe that the sources I have quoted belonging to The News (claims to be the largest English language newspaper in Pakistan), The Nation (printed apparently since 1996), The Dawn (claims to be Pakistan's oldest newspaper), The Tribune (claims to be Pakistan's only internationally affiliated newspaper) etc are unreliable, I would suggest you take this up at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would however understand if you might continue to differ from my point of view. Warmly. Lourdes 12:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still non notable. WP:CREATIVE is not passed as well. Capitals00 (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2017 (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.