Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faiz Mohammad Khoso

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Mohammad Khoso

Faiz Mohammad Khoso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

fails WP:BIO. There is absolutely zero inherent notability in being ambassador even to a "major country ", despite this weak argument being recycled in ambassador AfDs. The sources merely confirm he held the role rather than in depth. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All references are dead. Nothing supports assertions made or notability.--Rpclod (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dead links are valid references that are harder to find.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he was ambassador to several countries including Norway, and diplomats are generally notable. Some further mentions for WP:V include [1], [2], [3], [4] and more. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of being a diplomat, nor is there a free notability pass for being ambassador to Norway. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references are hardly indepth, is merely a one line mention, this is 2 lines in a broader article not about him, this is the same as the article you mentioned with a one line mention. WP:V is not the same as WP:N. 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Nom that this fails WP:BIO. This also fails ANYBIO. The added references have only one line references to the subject - this is not significant coverage. Also, WP:BLP requires coverage of the topic in agreement with the core content policies, of which WP:V and WP:NOR are not fulfilled. In this case, WP:V requires that the person have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, and this requirement is not satisfied. Without adequate coverage, presenting this person as notable is original research. There is no specific standard that applies to diplomats in WP:BIO and notability is not automatically conferred. Also fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The Express Tribune has had a couple of good articles, one of which no one has located recently, but was used to supply the birth date, which indicates depth.  The second from April 24, 2012, shows that he had retired and had been hired as a consultant for developing a Mandarin language program in a school district.  [5] is short but what is there is in-depth.  Even without the sources from the article we know that he was and is a prominent figure in the country.  We also have two more sources from the article that were good in 2012 and for which the WP:AGF is not disputed.  Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources.  At the same time, if editors want to find a suitable merge target, it may be that no one would object.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it has been listed as a Pakistan article for deletion since 5 October. Over 3 weeks for a Pakistan Urdu speaker to come to this discussion. LibStar (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think highly of the importance to Pakistan Urdu editors of your deletion discussion.  Did you consider looking for Urdu sources yourself, and avoid the possibility that they might have other priorities?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

have you looked for sources in Urdu? I've seen urdu speakers enter other AfD discussions. "Might have other priorities " indeed, perhaps they don't consider this a priority to save. Nice try. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the idea of looking for Urdu sources is a "nice try", but not something you'd want to do?  Why is that?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you not looked for sources in Urdu? LibStar (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't refused to look for sources in Urdu, so the premise is incorrect.  The statement to which you are responding is, "Naturally it would help to have a champion to search for Urdu sources."  And you decided it would be a good idea to start talking about hypothetical Pakistan Urdu editors.  Since they are not here, one way you could solve your own concern is to look for Urdu sources.  I continue to not know why you are talking about the need for Urdu sources, but won't look for them.  The starting point for anyone to do this is this topic's name in Urdu.  Can you provide that much and set it up as a Find sources AfD template?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you certainly love directing people to do what you want in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is hardly any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is also no inherent notability in just being an ambassador. Per WP:WHYN for a standalone article, we specifically require coverage in reliable secondary sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article. If we look at the third party sources, the coverage is limited to brief mentions. I do not see any suitable merge/redirect target so I will go for a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many things wrong there. (1) WHYN is rationale, not part of the guideline, and appears to be a leftover from a long-running attempt to add it as part of the guideline, an attempt that failed.  (2) WP:N does not require the existence of sufficient NPOV material to write an article.  It can't, because WP:N is not a content guideline.  It says this several times, for example the WP:N nutshell says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  (3) This particular article adds value with the material that it has.  (4) There were additional sources in the article.  Have you looked at all of them?  Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the rationale is why we have the guideline and I use it because it helps to follow the spirit of the guideline. While WP:N doesn't determine the content of the article, it does stop us from having an article if a content policy cannot be adhered to from existing sources. In this particular case, there is little coverage in the way of secondary sources. If we go by GNG alone, the subject wouldn't pass it
• Tribune 3 sentence coverage + a quote. Another tribune is very brief, is actually in the context of programme and the actual content about the subject is limited to 3 sentences
• Nation.com.ok One line mention
• Dawn One line + quote

There is very little over here which could help us write an article. The useful content that the subject was an ambassador to 3 countries could be simply mentioned in the respective bilateral relations articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just what did you think I meant when I said "the sources in the article"?  In addition to the three in the current article, there is a fourth reference used to create the article.

• Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011
• Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012
• "Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012.
• Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012.

Unscintillating (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I had looked them up already

• Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 27 March 2011 - This is short CV on MOFA embassy sub-website and the source is not a third party source useful for notability
• Ambassador to Tunisia MOFA, Pakistan. Retrieved 20 September 2012 - One line coverage
• "Faiz Mohammad appointed ambassador for Tunis". PakTribune. October 4, 2006. Retrieved 30 October 2012. - Website doesn't seem to be a reliable source (online only news site with no indication of editorial control). Also a routine announcement with brief information about the subject's previous posts
• Staff (July 3, 2010). "Ambassador-designates call on Zardari". Daily Times (Pakistan). Retrieved 30 October 2012. - One line coverage

None of these helps either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Government webpages of a democracy are not primary the way that the same page would be for an employee bio in private industry.  And as for writing an article, this is a wealth of reliable material.  And, it has not been considered in this AfD up until now.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Doesn't seem to be a reliable source?"  Do you have evidence?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You are the only editor at this AfD that claims to have seen this webpage.  Please verify that you can see this webpage.  For reference, see [6].  Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On a separate note, I prefer that a list of ambassadors be kept on the article about bilateral relations. For example Pakistan–Tunisia relations could mention the ambassadors listed here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This could work as mini-bios cross-linked as needed as the career diplomats move from post to post, if editors want to do it.  The pattern has been discussed recently at WT:Deletion policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an under-sourced vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @K.e.coffman:  Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article has had nine inline citations for six sentences since the start of this AfD.  With 1.5 citations per sentence, IMO that statistic is an unusually well-sourced article.  For four of those citations, Lemongirl1942 is the only one to have claimed to have seen the article.  Have you?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China.  Why do you think this is a vanity page?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources discuss why the subject is notable; i.e. the subject knows Chinese -- so what? There's no inherent notability for ambassadors. If there's disagreement about that, this should be discussed at the WP:NPOL page. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no answer to the question of why this is supposedly a "vanity page", or the relevance of that assertion to this discussion.  Nor is there an answer to the question of why 1.5 inline citations per sentence is an "under-sourced" article.  Wikipedia notability does not require that an article discuss Wikipedia's opinion of "why" a topic is notable...rather that is for talk page discussion.  Wikipedia notability is not a content guideline, as per WP:ARTN.  Nor do sources have to discuss "why" Wikipedia considers a topic notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is a diplomat for one of the world's nuclear powers, and in one case was the representative to another nuclear power, neighboring China. this is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither a criterion for notability nor is it not a criterion for notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Well, he exists. And that's just it. Nothing in the article and none that I see in sources submitted above and on Google.com.pk suggests that he is anywhere nearer to WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. Anup [Talk] 14:35, 12 November 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.