Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Siddiqi

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. Sandstein 14:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Siddiqi

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

This article failed to meet the terms of Wikipedia notability through Basic criteria and Additional criteria. No reliable sources. Three of the five references are dead link. Otherwise no strong Third-party sources. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 07:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why journalists shouldn't have their own article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument for keeping. Journalists do not have inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person seems to be the editor of a widely read newspaper The Express Tribune. I searched a bit and I did find independent sources like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] as well as passing mentions here [6], [7]. I would say the article subject is notable, but the article in its current form needs to be trimmed down. Keep article but trim. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So It would need additional sources as you provide and must be trim. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now actually as the article is still questionable overall and the Keep votes are not confident enough to suggest this will be better improved especially considering the article's current troubled state. Delete for now at best, Keep only if it's noticeably improved and, if not, Draft instead for future uses, and imaginably return to mainspace when better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most informative of the sources cited by the article is the Global Journalist story,[8] which is half interview transcript and half capsule bio. The latter might be the result of research and analysis by the reporting staff, but it reads like the average self-supplied author bio. The rest of the cited sources are largely written by him. To this I can add only one piece from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[9] It's a fluffy everyman story about his relationship with his teenage daughter, but at least it's about him rather than by him. These are insufficient to pass any notability guideline.

Lemongirl942 has listed seven additional sources above. The deepest is most of a paragraph in the Herald (Karachi: Dawn Media Group)[10] which describes the self-censorship he has found necessary in Pakistan. The rest are generally of the form "Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, said" followed by a brief quote. More of the same type are available. The problem is that networking with other news organizations, exchanging quotes, and getting your paper mentioned seem to be a routine part of the job of editor. Just because a journalist has been quoted by a dozen different media outlets, doesn't make them notable.

Perhaps he can satisfy criterion #1 of WP:JOURNALIST, "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Wikipedia itself cites articles he has written only 4 times. Google scholar shows a dozen citations spread over half a dozen of his articles. Google books returns many false positives, but if one further limits the search to after when he began his career (1990) and by the names of papers where he has worked, one gets 11 (Dawn) + 9 (The News) + 8 (Indian Express). These are not notable numbers. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think every journalist deserves a page, but this guy seems to. I think it's more appropriate to keep it and add a banner asking for more references.VanEman (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seems notable? LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero attempt to explain how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the sources in the article meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N no additional comment is needed. But if you prefer: [11] is a source solely on the topic. [12] provides both an independent biography and documents an award from Stanford University. In addition he has been interviewed by The Guardian about the paper he's the editor for here as well as by the Washington Post [13]. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. the supplied sources are not in-depth about the subject but merely confirm his role. Secondly most of the keep votes presented here make no real attempt to explain how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What most !votes do doesn't matter. That sources have been provided (both in the article and above) is all that matters. Just saying that "sources aren't in-depth about the subject" makes one suspect you didn't read the sources since at least one is purely about the subject... Hobit (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My perusal of the sources offered here and in the article reveal far too many passing mentions and primary sources. An example is this, which Lemongirl942 seems to consider comprehensive coverage (as it's grouped with several as "independent") and then offers two that are "passing mentions" separately. This example is most definitely a passing mention, rather than the comprehensive coverage needed to establish notability in a Wikipedia context. The most convincing argument I've seen for meeting notability criteria is the argument by Worldbruce, but I don't think it's quite there. For Hobit, I have read the sources, and this is my conclusion. The article simply having sources isn't sufficient, the sources must be reliable and of sufficient quality. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2016 (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.