Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafar Mahmud (3rd 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 no consensus‎. I think discussion has finally run out of steam, and would recommend waiting a while before considering filing a new AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmud

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 5. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Pakistan, and India. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@US-Verified, Piotrus, Indefensible, NYC Guru, CT55555, and Visviva: Pinging previous AfD participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for overturning the previous AFD close. I think it should either be kept or draftified at worse, not deleted. Was actually fine with the draft since I have no particular interest with the subject, however we could strip the article down to its sources and let remain in stub form. However there were enough references in my opinion to support inclusion. - Indefensible (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - WP:BASIC/WP:GNG and other notability guidelines are not supported by independent, reliable, secondary coverage at this time. Most of the article remains unsourced or poorly sourced after the addition of limited and trivial coverage from a 1956 Macon News article (which briefly notes Mahmud's service as one of two training officers in the Pakistan Air Force, his 1952 training in the US, and his work as an observer of trainings in the US) and the 1956 Albuquerque Journal source (briefly mentioning his attendance at a dinner party during his tour of US Air Force bases) during the previous AfD discussion. The suggestions of historical significance made in the previous AfD do not appear to be supported by available sources; original research and unverified claims are not sufficient to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC) - !vote updated to reverse outcome preference, after review and consideration of further discussion, particularly comments by Sportingflyer and Scopecreep. Beccaynr (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge/redirect (somewhere). While the addition of two local newspaper mentions is nice, I fear that there is still very little to show notability. The Macon News is so local/news it does not even have an article. The coverage itself seems to be routine/press release level for local news (foreign officer visits tiny town, does something like attends a party...). I am sorry but that's not significant, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I've added a Polish source for him being an ambassador, it's at the level of the local news - a regional newspaper/magazine notes that he visited a provincial governor (a voivode; "25 kwietnia ambasador Islamskiej Republiki Pakistanu w Polsce Zafar Mahmud złożył wizytę wojewodzie poznańskiemu Marianowi Królowi..."). Two other soruces seem to be catalogue mentions of him on lists of ambassadors. That's it for Google Books in Polish (granted, many sources are not digitzed yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I decided to look into The Macon News. It was a newspaper with a 99 year history. It was one of two newspapers serving Macon, Georgia, and merged with The Telegraph (Macon, Georgia) in 1983. CT55555(talk) 00:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is likely more notable than the invidual here. Thanks for creating the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (1st preference) or otherwise delete (2nd preference). From my perspective, BASIC and GNG are failed. None of the coverage here meets SIGCOV or are non-trivial IMO. The catalogue ref, image ref, and YouTube SPS video do not contribute to notability, Of the rest, this newspaper source from TWL covers the subject in a 10-sentence section, of which 2 sentences are quotes, so there are 8 sentences of independent content. By contrast, the other newspapers source covers the subject in a 5-sentence subsection of which there are only 3 sentences are not about the subject (two sentences are about Mrs Javovitz and another is Among those attending the dinner were Mr. and Mrs Patrick Manning and Miss Maxine Barrett. This leaves a 2-sentence coverage on Mahmud that is very clearly not non-trivial. I am not familar with Polish sources, but Piotrus above has noted that it is also very short coverage. I get that non-English historical sources are difficult to find, so I would support a draftication instead of a deletion, but at the moment upon searching The Wikipedia Library and Newspaper.com, there is no source IMO that is even borderline SIGCOV, so I oppose keeping. VickKiang (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, a few "keep" votes below noted that something along the lines of many existing sources seem reliable. In my view, more reliable sources can easily be found and added. I agree that some sources are reliable, e.g., the Albuquerque Journal, a moderately sized newspaper in New Mexico seems to meet WP:NEWSORG, and the historic newspaper The Macon News (yes, it is local but we are not applying SIRS standards here). Instead, my concern about SIGCOV, not contending that there is no reliable sourcing. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article has a credible claim to notability (he played a role in historical events). Those events took some times ago and the records are most likely offline. Quoting Wikipedia:Deletion policy If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. This seems like great example of an article that can be improved. I assume the draftify votes above agree with that, but favour it being improved in draft space. However, that is likely just a slow delete, as we tend to delete things after 6 months and I don't know if someone will be able to undertake the level of verification needed on offline sources. I already added newspaper article citations talking about his international diplomatic role. He was the subject of the article, although they were short articles and the sources local newspapers. Nothing on wikipedia discounts local newspapers and I don't see it as an important point that one newspaper doesn't yet have a wikipedia article, I think it is a reliable source, and that is what matters. I've quoted policy already, but to note a pillar of the encylopedia too WP:IAR we can exercise judgement here and ask the simple question: is the encyclopedia better or worse for having this article. The "references needed" tags alert the reader that it is not well referenced. This article (like all) is a work in progress and a net benefit to the encyclopedia. CT55555(talk) 13:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 13:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with CT55555 argument plus the article is partially well sourced although I may have an issue with the page creator User talk:Shahidm who is possibly (Redacted). Citing Wikipedia:Notability (politics):Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable. but he was Ambassador in three different countries beside participating in several historical events. Also, just remember that most of the sources included here are written in English, wonder what Urdu sources will bring

FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - one of the core content policies implicated in this discussion is verifiability, and for a substantial portion of this article, the policy Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, i.e. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Currently available sources [1] are:

bharat-rakshak.com - a website hosted by Wordpress (the About page of the website currently says "Oops! That page can’t be found.") that appears to provide a partial service record; this source also links to an Internet Archive collection that I have searched for verification without success. This source has been used to support claims about Mahmud, including a date of birth and some specifics of his service, which it does not.
Ismailimail.blog - titled "Historical Photograph: Prince Karim Aga Khan in early 1950s (Pakistan)" - this blog post has no content other than "Source: Vintage Pakistan." Searching this blog for "Zafar Mahmud" produces no results, but this source has been used to support extraordinary content in the article.
The Macon News (1956) - this brief local news article is reporting on an item of local interest, specifically, per the headline, "Pakistan Colonel Is At Robins Observing Training Program." This source notes a planned year-long trip in the US to observe trainings at USAF bases; that this is Mahmud's third visit to the US; that he previously completed training in the US in 1952, and had previously traveled in the US in 1955 observing trainings; and before this, had been one of two training officers in the Pakistan AF, and a quote from Mahmud praising the USAF training. The local nature of this source, in this context, appears to be insufficient to establish the extraordinary claim that this is a historical event. In the article, this source has been used to claim "Zafar spent a number of years in the U.S." but it does not appear to support this.
Albuquerque Journal (1956) - trivial coverage of Mahmud's attendance at a dinner party used in the article to support his 1956 rank of Wing Commander.
The Report of the Hamoodur Rehman Commission of Inquiry Into the 1971 War, as Declassified by the Government of Pakistan - Mahmud appears to be mentioned once in this source - "Names of the following officers, who were to act as the representatives of each of the three services, were intimated on Jan 12 1972. They were: (i) Air Commodore Zafar Mahmud, PAF; (ii) [...]." This source is used to support the claim that he did represent PAF, but this source appears to refer to his participation in a future tense, without confirmation or any detail of his participation in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission. This source is also used to support the claim that he became the Commandant of the PAF Air War College after the war, but this one line does not.
Kronika Wielkopolski, Issue 37 - added by Piotrus, noted above, to verify ambassadorships to ~~Somalia and~~ Poland, but not Czechoslovakia or Somalia.
A youtube video titled "Air Commodore Zafar Mahmud Celebration of Life" that may not be a reliable source, used to verify names that likely should be excluded per WP:BLPNAME.

I also think it is worthwhile to note All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic, and according to contentious topics procedures, we must e.g. edit carefully and constructively. This need for careful editing strongly indicates it is not better for the encyclopedia to retain an article suggesting extraordinary roles in historical events without support according to core content policies. And to reply to speculation above about my support for draftification, my alternative support is based on the previous draftification, core content policies, the amount of unsourced content in the article, the extraordinary claims asserted without verification, and the contentious nature of the topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr Minor clarification: the source I've added only verifies the status of ambassador to Poland, not Somalia. Maybe add a cite needed to the Somalia word which preceeds Poland? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you, Piotrus - I have updated my comment above to correct my misreading, and to fix the diff I had meant to point to the version of the article I was referring to for my source review. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found (and added) a source that confirms his role in Somalia. CT55555(talk) 02:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly don't think WP:GNG is met here. I understand people are trying, but we're trying to piece together an article using only a small subset of sources per Beccaynr's analysis. I struck out with a basic Urdu search. No problem with draftifying this, though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete 75% of the article has a cn or unreliable ref tag and it seems to be in mainspace for some reason when it should have remained in draft. There was a reason that folk didn't want to review in Afc, because it reads a like coi article with lots of unverifiable content, likely written by a family member. Why was the coi tag removed? As an Air Commodore, passing WP:V is a start and potentially notable as an Wing Commander and an ambassador, but the sources are currently insufficient to pass WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and improve before bringing back. Many parts are flagged with "citation needed," so at minimum they should be removed.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

The presence of tags should not be used to justify deletion. Tagging is noted as an alternative to deletion here WP:ATD-T. The essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I think, emphasises this point.
I removed the COI tag. I explained in the edit summary why. As Scope Creep asked above, as per Template:COI: Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning. No discussion existed on the talk page.
I think it is incorrect to say that "citation needed" requires the content to be removed. More information about that can be found here Template:Citation needed CT55555(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about COI was redacted by @Primefac, see this page history. But I place a warning in User talk:Shahidm FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see nothing in the current sources that suggests the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (per source analysis above). I suspect there should be better sources, but we want sources that describe the subject's specific contributions to historical events, rather than an acknowledgment of title (such as ambassador). --Enos733 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Draftify, although I'm not convinced there are enough RS to show significance (it's possible, but not likely based on what's here). Intothat darkness 17:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not add up to notability guidelines for WP:BASIC. While draftify is an option, I would think based on the length of the discussion that references would have been found already so don't see the use of doing it. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing and continued growth over time. This is a hard topic that will require the right person and sources to verify. We continue to see small improvements with time. So long as that is happening there is no benefit to deletion. Moving to draft is a waste of time, that's where articles go to die because they don't get the same attention. -- GreenC 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the continued debate, I do not see why this cannot just be stripped down to a stub with its sources if needed per WP:ATD instead of deleted. This is a historical subject who factually was at least honored and covered by international sources and served as their country's ambassador to at least 2 other countries. Yes the sources are not great but we should consider the context and people evidently do want to work on the article, so I do not see how deleting this will serve the encyclopedia. - Indefensible (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are seems reliable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many existing sources seem reliable. In my view, more reliable sources can easily be found and added. After all, he served as an ambassador to three different countries for Pakistan after he retired from Pakistan Air Force...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is the key point for me. Nwhyte (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DIPLOMAT. War Wounded (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DIPLOMAT is an essay with no community consensus for its presumption of notability (if an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay, an individual biography article can be created), and there is not sources noting Mahmud's role as "head of mission" that I can find, so this should not override GNG IMO. VickKiang (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, userfy or delete. Whether or not the portions of the article is not yet able to be sourced truly constitute OR, I find their presence concerning. Yet, if they are removed, we have almost nothing left. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs clean up and improvement, we should let this continue at least in stub form per WP:ATD, or draftify as needed. There is still no consensus for deletion in my opinion, maybe someone wants to check for sockpuppets above though. - Indefensible (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete much of the keep arguments seems based on a fallacy that being an ambassador gives inherent notability when it doesn't. Absent that, the sourcing isn't good enough and attending a dinner doesn't give notability either. Overall the extraordinary claims for notability based on what seems to be hope and opinion that sources must exist or could be found is not a basis to keep this around. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but no consensus in sight...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the unsourced content. Subject's historical importance indicate there must be offline coverage in old Urdu newspapers and books. Insight 3 (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about meets WP:GNG and I suspect further sources may be found over time. Obviously a notable individual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2023 (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.