Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameer Zeb Khan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ameer Zeb Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per another editor's prod: Unreferenced BLP failing to satisfy WP:ENT. Mbinebri talk ← 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did a quick search and was only able to come up with this. I don't think that's quite enough for notability... SilverserenC 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - subject won the Lux Style Award for best male model in 2008. (See http://www.magtheweekly.com/29/event.php). He also won in 2007, although I don't have an RS link to back that up at the moment. He has been nominated for the same award again this year. This is a major award & sufficient to establish notability. It is not exactly shocking that a male model in Pakistan doesn't have much English language coverage that is readily available online. However, here are twointerviews he did. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the article Lux Style Award fails to verify any claims to prominence for this award (and coverage of it is thin at best), so does little to establish notability. Lacking any significant reliable independent coverage (per WP:GNG), there is no verifiable basis for establishing notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: English language coverage available online is thin. English is neither the primary language of Pakistan, nor are most of its newspapers and magazines available online. Of course that is not proof of more coverage, but it does provide a reasonable reason to believe said coverage does exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction to correction: purported coverage in sources whose very existence is unverifiable does nothing to raise the notability of either award or recipient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Award notability confirmed: "The Lux Style Awards are 'the' awards ceremony in Pakistan" "The Lux Style Awards ... regarded as the 'Oscars of Pakistan'""the Lux Style Awards, Pakistan's answer to the Oscars..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short, superficial puff-pieces don't confirm notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you personally have a VERY different definition of notability than Wikipedia, but based on actual policy it is absurd to argue the award itself isn't notable. After all, two reliable sources with in depth coverage is all that is required. The award itself has beyond that by leaps and bounds (as it hundreds of stories). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming notability on the basis of the vacuous puffery you just cited (which is so far away from "significant coverage" as to be not even in the same universe) is what is "absurd". 02:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am claiming clear & obvious notability based on the hundreds of English language sources on the award alone. To dismiss hundreds of normally RS stories as "vacuous puffery" is indeed quite absurd. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it not notable - notability requires coverage, nothing more, nothing less. There is no "it isn't scholarly, so it isn't notable clause" to our guidelines. If you think there should be, you are welcome to suggest it, but until that time we should go by the existing guidelines not your judgment about what is or is not worthwhile coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. Lacking substantiation (i.e. links to actual articles containing "significant coverage" -- which can reasonably be considered to exclude "vacuous puffery"), both assertions are equally worthless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly do we define "vacuous puffery"? What you don't like? Because that seems to be what you are saying. I say the hundreds of RS stories on Lux Style Award clearly establish notability. You say they are all "vacuous puffery". Maybe we are both right, but according to policy being pop culture crap isn't sufficient reason to delete. Feel free to nominate the award for deletion, but until that time I say it is clearly notable & Pakistan RS seem to agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Material that both lacks a detailed WP:PRIMARY account of events, the serious "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, evaluative claims" that we should have WP:SECONDARY sources for, or a concise 'summary' that we should have tertiary sources for, would be a good first approximation. Material whose primary purpose is promotional rather than informative. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly do we define "vacuous puffery"? What you don't like? Because that seems to be what you are saying. I say the hundreds of RS stories on Lux Style Award clearly establish notability. You say they are all "vacuous puffery". Maybe we are both right, but according to policy being pop culture crap isn't sufficient reason to delete. Feel free to nominate the award for deletion, but until that time I say it is clearly notable & Pakistan RS seem to agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm claiming that the moon is made of green cheese. Lacking substantiation (i.e. links to actual articles containing "significant coverage" -- which can reasonably be considered to exclude "vacuous puffery"), both assertions are equally worthless. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am claiming clear & obvious notability based on the hundreds of English language sources on the award alone. To dismiss hundreds of normally RS stories as "vacuous puffery" is indeed quite absurd. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it not notable - notability requires coverage, nothing more, nothing less. There is no "it isn't scholarly, so it isn't notable clause" to our guidelines. If you think there should be, you are welcome to suggest it, but until that time we should go by the existing guidelines not your judgment about what is or is not worthwhile coverage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming notability on the basis of the vacuous puffery you just cited (which is so far away from "significant coverage" as to be not even in the same universe) is what is "absurd". 02:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I know you personally have a VERY different definition of notability than Wikipedia, but based on actual policy it is absurd to argue the award itself isn't notable. After all, two reliable sources with in depth coverage is all that is required. The award itself has beyond that by leaps and bounds (as it hundreds of stories). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Short, superficial puff-pieces don't confirm notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Award notability confirmed: "The Lux Style Awards are 'the' awards ceremony in Pakistan" "The Lux Style Awards ... regarded as the 'Oscars of Pakistan'""the Lux Style Awards, Pakistan's answer to the Oscars..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction to correction: purported coverage in sources whose very existence is unverifiable does nothing to raise the notability of either award or recipient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: English language coverage available online is thin. English is neither the primary language of Pakistan, nor are most of its newspapers and magazines available online. Of course that is not proof of more coverage, but it does provide a reasonable reason to believe said coverage does exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep. According to the article for the award, it's Pakistan's equivalent to the Oscars... but for fashion I guess. If the award is indeed something of note, then he satisfies WP:BIO. However, the article needs to be cleaned up. I removed a sentence about his personal likes, but the article needs improved tone overall. If this award is not notable, delete. Lara 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough reliable sources from which to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Major Pakistani english language media outlets have substantial online presence. Searches show next to no coverage of the subject in the heavy hitters of Pakistani media The News [1], DAWN [2] and Geo [3]. --Whoosit (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are online, but do they have their archives online? As near as I can tell they don't, with only one of the three having any coverage prior to 2008, which makes a huge difference in the amount of coverage you can expect to find. Even given that limitation, one of the sources you provided has this which states "The big names in the history of male modeling in Pakistan include ...and Ameer Zeb Khan ... in the latter part of this decade." which confirms his importance. This story confirms the importance of the Lux Awards. I also found the following interview linked to fro one of those sites: [4]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I disagree. The sources you reference actually prove the subject's lack of notability. You've referred to i) a promotional website for the fashion industry, ii) a gossip piece in an adolescent's magazine and iii) a minor fashion editorial in a major daily. Of those, the only source that could even be considered reliable is the third--the fashion editorial, and it makes a single mention of the subject. I think you are not giving the Pakistani media enough credit. If the guy was notable he would be featured. Try the same search in the same papers with a performer who is proven notable, like daytime TV actor Humayun Saeed. You'll see the difference in the hits. --Whoosit (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are online, but do they have their archives online? As near as I can tell they don't, with only one of the three having any coverage prior to 2008, which makes a huge difference in the amount of coverage you can expect to find. Even given that limitation, one of the sources you provided has this which states "The big names in the history of male modeling in Pakistan include ...and Ameer Zeb Khan ... in the latter part of this decade." which confirms his importance. This story confirms the importance of the Lux Awards. I also found the following interview linked to fro one of those sites: [4]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have sourced the Lux Style Awards page to make the importance of the awards more clear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article about a Pakistani notable person who has never made the news in the West. Issues with further sourcing can best be addressed by cleanup and getting input and assistance from Pakistani Wikpedians who have access to sources not available online. WP:CSB allows a reasonable assumption that in light of what English sources are available online toward verification of his LUX award and the award's notability, more sources are likely available for the subject of the article, even if non-English or not available online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:CSB is a Project, not a guideline or policy, so is a problematical basis for 'allowing' an assumption. Likewise repeated WP:EGG pipes to WP:COMMONSENSE does not alter Wikipedia's requirement that the existence of sources must be verifiable, not merely asserted or assumed. I would suggest that you are conflating common sense with truthiness. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking an argumentum ad absurdum of Michael's argument, it is "likely" that somewhere in the universe aliens exist, it is also "likely" that some of these aliens have written histories of their civilisations. It could therefore be argued that the "likely" existence of these histories would make Histories of alien civilisations notable, and that refusal to allow such an article is "systemic bias". I would not however expect such an argument to stand scrutiny at AfD. This is why we stick to sources whose existence we can verify. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that more sources exist. For example, the subject won a significant award last year and RS attest to that fact. The same subject won the same award previously, but those same RS don't have archives that date back that far online, even though those same RS most certainly did exist at that time. It is quite reasonably to assume they covered the previous wins as well. Additionally, it would be quite odd for those same awards to have only English language coverage considering that essentially all of the country's 172 million people speak a language other than English as their primary language.
Furthermore, even if we make the ridiculous assumption that the totality of the subject's coverage stems from the last two years and is entirely in English we still meet WP:V easily, so your analogy is utterly flawed. We have three lengthy interviews, several sources attesting to his award, and several other minor mentions such as the source that calls him one of the most important models of his decade. Of course to you these are all "vacuous puffery" and therefore don't meet WP:N, but to argue they don't meet WP:V is absurd. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that more sources exist. For example, the subject won a significant award last year and RS attest to that fact. The same subject won the same award previously, but those same RS don't have archives that date back that far online, even though those same RS most certainly did exist at that time. It is quite reasonably to assume they covered the previous wins as well. Additionally, it would be quite odd for those same awards to have only English language coverage considering that essentially all of the country's 172 million people speak a language other than English as their primary language.
- Comment: WP:CSB is a Project, not a guideline or policy, so is a problematical basis for 'allowing' an assumption. Likewise repeated WP:EGG pipes to WP:COMMONSENSE does not alter Wikipedia's requirement that the existence of sources must be verifiable, not merely asserted or assumed. I would suggest that you are conflating common sense with truthiness. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on ThaddeusB's award notability confirmed bit, linking to news coverage proving that is an important award in that country. If t he guy one it, he is notable. Dream Focus 03:35, 12 October 2009 (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.