Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustaq Ahmad

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaq Ahmad

[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)

Fails WP:BIO. No effective referencing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some WP:BEFORE could've been done before this one. Not sure if he is notable, but it's possible, and I'm not too familiar with reliable Singaporean sources. But there are these [1][2] with a quick search. Significant coverage yes, but not sure if reliable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader:, The Online Citizen, when the articles are not politics related, is general reliable. Vulcanpost is generally reliable for business related news. Significant coverage of the Mustaq Ahmad is only recent despite of Mustafa's long time presence. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Created by User:BloominOnion27, who is also the creator of an article claimed by Wikiprofessionals Inc. as paid editing done on their behalf. All of this editor's article creations are questionable. BD2412 T 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A parallel biography can be read here: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1164_2009-03-10.html, which strikes to me that his life revolves around Mustafa Centre. Some text in this article can easily be incorporated into Mustafa Centre, which is way more notable than Mustaq Ahmad himself. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a cursory search online yields just enuf significant third-party coverage through the years for GNG to be met (Forbes, Bloomberg, Straits Times, etc.) This is not a case of BLP1E. Agree that the article's current state is quite terrible (if it wuz indeed paid editing, then somebody should be demanding a refund!)—but AfD is not cleanup. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes is non-RS. It is deprecated as a source for info. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

says who?! Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: not the list entry as sourced in the article per WP:FORBES. You are probably referring to WP:FORBESCON. – robertsky (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip that its, but more so, the WMF has added a feature to the software which highlights certain sources if your in the NPP/Afc group, i.e. references that are very low quality. The policy now is to remove them. I think Forbes is going to be another Daily Mail. There is just too much poor quality, low-value content coming out of it. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatantly promotional text that, in our Wikipedia of years past, might have fit right in. Not in our day and age, though; not when the criteria have tightened up as they have. Nowadays, we don't have much time for random information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article calls for cleanup, not deletion. It doesn't change the fact that the topic of the article meets GNG. WP:AfD is not cleanup Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that twice now, but that is not the point. If there was coverage, it would in the article. Most the coverage that is present is promotional, self generated. There is little, to none of secondary sources, that are reliable, intellectually independent and secondary. scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"There must be sources" is not an acceptable argument. -The Gnome (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2020 (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.