Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafay Baloch

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 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Baloch

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

Self-proclaimed ethical hackers are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. The subject has received some press coverage (mention in passing) but nothing substantial information about him which enable us to create a proper stand-alone bio on the subject. Saqib (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional article (created by a "consultant, marketing advisor, and proud wikipedian"). The claims of the subject's notability are supported by seemingly legitimate sources which, upon close inspection, prove to be trivial and worthless: Mention of name in a myriad-name list by Microsoft; one passing mention in a BBC article about bugs; etc. Local sources (such as this) provide straight up fawning verbiage, unworthy of sourcing. The subject's a young student. Give him time and he might make it here yet. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Your characterization of The Express Tribune as a "local source" seems off the mark. It's a national newspaper, and the only internationally-affiliated newspaper in Pakistan. The fact that there are two articles in that paper devoted to in-depth coverage of the subject suggests that the subject is notable. The fawning verbiage is to be expected when covering a young Pakistani who has made an impact on global tech companies. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The newspaper is local; I see nothing "off the mark" in characterizing a Pakistani newspaper writing about a Pakistani subject as a "local source." I understand the reasons you give for the quality of their reporting. My assessment about the essential quality of the local sources' reporting remains unchanged. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a national newspaper providing coverage of a citizen of the same country as the newspaper. It is no different from the New York Times coverage of a US citizen. We don't make a distinction based on the size of the country. The only guideline we have about geography would be in WP:CORP#Audience, which requires that coverage be national or at least regional in scope. WP:GNG doesn't even have that restriction. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Size of the country"? What does the size of Pakistan have to do with anything? Where did I use the "size" of Pakistan in my arguments? Please clarify. -The Gnome (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I thought you may have been indirectly referring to size when you called it a "local source", which it isn't. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about a subject from, for example, Freedonia, and discuss the quality and trustworthiness of a source, we might comment that it is not a western/English source but a Freedonian source, a local source. Sometimes, in assessing the trustworthiness of information, we even demand to have local sources. The term is not derogatory but simply descriptive. The aforementioned newspaper has very large circulation and is written in English; it's still a (valid) local source, in my lexicon. In general, most articles in this Wikipedia, the English-language one, are mainly supported by local sources, i.e. western based ones, written in English. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this reads like too west-centered a viewpoint, let me assure that it isn't. It's merely a description of how things work in every culture. Locality differs across locales! -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Agree This is not such a thing that you described, because he has many notable works. Just like Tavis_Ormandy. He also belongs to same category. He is featured on international and national media too. Yes there are some local sources but these sources are highly appreciated in Pakistan.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is creator of the BLP[reply]

@IamZulqarnain: Have you been paid to create this bio? --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I'm not paid to create this bio. He gave us seminar on Cyber Security and Penetration in our University, SO I read about him and found that this person should be on Wikipedia. because he also has given many seminars in out of countries too. He also starts his company/startup in Pakistan for security of webs and platforms and buit his own products. But I'm not here publicize his company or product. I'm only here after reading his notable works.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and heavily promotional. I agree that WP:TOOSOON may apply. --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Could someone please give me reason or suggestion that how to improve this or what are the factors which doesn't meet Wikipedia notable criteria.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links that I've found to be useful to me: on the notability of an article's subject; a general notability guideline; the whole shebang about N; specifically about biographies; what to be careful about when editing a biography of a living person; how to create a draft and get community input. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple instances of significant coverage in a national news publication, per my comments above. Pretty obviously meets WP:GNG. The 'delete' comments aren't grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. If the guidelines are lacking, then propose changes in the appropriate talk pages, but for the purposes of this discussion, it looks like the basic notability requirements are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Before nom this BLP for deletion, I had a look at the coverage in the Express Tribune but I found it insufficient. This and this does not address the subject directly and in detail, as GNG requre. There is no biographical information in these two news stories about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed source need not cover biographical information, it needs only to provide coverage of the subject. In this case, they cover the subject's work. That is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself acknowledge that the coverage in the Express Tribune discuss the subject's work not the subject himself so I don't think they meet the GNG. I read somewhere where @Hut 8.5: said "GNG requires that at least one or two sources have to cover the subject directly and in detail. It must be more than a passing mention and it must devote a substantial amount of text to the subject himself." --Saqib (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Often extensive biographical information isn't available except from primary sources. Secondary sources, which are required for notability, will most often be about the subject's works and career, and if the coverage is extensive and/or in-depth, as it is in this case, then that is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believe he obtained enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNC. Coverage in The Express Tribune and Forbes meets current guidelines.ShoesssS ^Talk 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We now have arguments repeated on the basis of the same, refuted justification ad nauseam. Can we have this AfD closed down, one way or another? It's been up awhile. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like your own arguments have been refuted. There is no policy that requires significant coverage to be biographical coverage, and I have explained why, above. If I were closing this, it would be 'no consensus'. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I agree that if this AfD were to be closed down now, it'd be on a decision of "no consensus." In the rest of your arguments I find little merit, sorry to say.

Source forensics:

That BBC report: Only mentions subject in passing as part of group of hackers who'd warned Google. Another hacker is actually talked about more prominently.

The WSJ report is similar to BBC's.

The Black Hat Asia conference: Simply a list of presenters in a hackers' presentation. I can suggest far, far more "notable" persons if we are to accept as notability evidence a conference brochure.

The two Tribune articles, in 2012 and 2015: Although "Baloch" is a common name in Pakistan (see Balochistan), there is no disclaimer about the reporter Farooq Baloch not having any relation to Rafay Baloch. Different customs maybe, but I'm a stickler on mine. And his "reports" I find to be of highly promotional nature. Maybe that's just me, but my views are at least also the AfD nominator's. Second, the second story is all about a blog that lauds the subject's work, written up by a company whose corporate interest is boosted, plainly speaking, when mobile-phone users are worried about security.

I also note how the 2015 article charmingly reveals that Rafay has "hardly got any attention from national news channels [in Pakistan]." Essentially, the reporter himself, the one who pushes the story, disputes WP:GNG.

The only report worth its salt is the 2014 post by Thomas Fox-Brewster on his Forbes hosted blog. That's one text online focusing on Rafay Baloch's work; hardly a preponderance of WP:GNG evidence.

All in all, a hacker becomes notable for one achievement/event and already merits an article?! Well, as I already wrote, WP:TOOSOON carries the day, in my view, though not the view of the majority. The marketing consultant who created and pushes this article knows it was deleted in 2015 and again in 2016, but still tries on. This time he may well succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Fails WP:NPOV/WP:NPROMO. It isn't obvious to me that the sources on the subject are neutral or in-depth enough to easilly deal with these issues. I would consider changing my !vote if these policy issues were dealt with using better sources, but a quick look doesn't find any sources that are obviously better. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:57, 29 May 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.