Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Ali Zaidi

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 keep‎. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Ali Zaidi

[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)

This bio clearly fails GNG, but instead of taking it to AFD, I draftified it to give the creator a chance to get it approved through AFC review. However, they reverted my draftification, leaving me no choice but to take it to AFD. Those arguing to keep it based on WP:ANYBIO #1 should also understand that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. It lacks direct and in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Cited sources quote text like "His Namaze Janaza will be offered today (Wednesday) at 14:30 hrs at Imambargah Jamia Sadiq at G-9/2 (Near Karachi Company) Islamabad. He will be buried in Karachi," which suggests that this is a paid obituary. WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated, and the awards he received are military-specific and are awarded based on the person's rank rather than their accomplishments. Only civilian awards are prestigious, so this bio fails WP:ANYBIO as well. President is different from vice chancellor so fails WP:NACADEMIC as well. 202.59.12.208 (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 202.59.12.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Better to login to your account (not a new user who immediately finds AfD)/ no contributions outside this AfD) than presenting your biased opinions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears, While I personally don’t appreciate votes by IPs in AFDs, even when they share the same opinion as mine, but this vote do raise valid concerns that you need to counter if you want to keep this BLP. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: BLP? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears, My mistake—I meant to say "bio". — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I make unintentional mistakes too. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP is referring to President (corporate title) which is completely different from Chancellor (education) – President (education). The subject in question served as the chancellor i.e President (education). If you don't know the differences, please don't waste time of other AfD participants. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, I get that university presidents are usually seen as notable, but this guy's background as a soldier rather than an academic makes it a bit questionable. No? Just because he was president of a military university doesn’t mean he’s made any significant academic contributions. PS. I am glad you took the IP to task! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I fear that the sources and article may not have been fully reviewed. The subject also held a notable role at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, which I feel adds to his notability. From what I understand, my challenge to the draftification may have been taken personally, which could be why it went to AfD without a neutral or closer review. I'm not against taking this article to AfD; my concern is about questionable review. It TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It seems that when you nominate an article for AfD, there is often strong advocacy against retention, which may come across as challenging the "keep" votes, and influencing other editors, potentially harming WP:CON. (see this, this, this, this, this, and this.........) I'm a bit concerned that this approach might be affecting the neutrality of discussions. The best practice is to review the article and the provided sources very closely, then describe the issue at the time of AfD nomination and let the community decide the fate of AfDed articles. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  TheBirdsShedTears, I think the AGF factor is missing here and I believe this discussion is going off track. Instead of focusing on the subject, you're discussing me and my behavior in this AFD, which isn't the right forum for that. But since you asked, let me clarify: when someone makes a WP:ATA or when someone with a questionable editing history - yes, I said questionable editing history - !votes to change the outcome of an AFD, I feel it’s necessary to counter them. That’s not a bad thing, is it? That said, if you believe this AFD is unjustified, you still have time to explain why it should be kept. If it's based on GNG, please provide links to coverage that establish WP:N. If it falls under some SNG, please clarify that. I hope it’s not NACADEMIC, as I’ve raised concerns about that. And being the Head of the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad doesn’t inherently make someone WP:N either; they still need to meet some criteria. You must know better, don’t you? PS. this might be my last comment on this AFD to allow you and others to decide its fate. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to XII Corps (Pakistan). Zaidi does not appear to have commanded in combat, which might attract notable sources; and is not on the unbroken commander's list at II Corps (Pakistan). He is on the list for commanding XII Corps from May 1987 to Aug 1989 (unsourced, however). A note could be added to the XII Corps page to say that in 1989 Zaidi took over the senior military academic staff post, and then died 2020. That would allow that mention to be used as a seed for any future addition of reliable sources to recreate the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There’s one reliable source, which isn’t enough for significant coverage. I won’t oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a bit puzzled by this AfD. The subject served as a president of the National Defence University, Pakistan. President in this case is referring to the highest-ranking officer within the academic administration of a university. WP:NPROF criterion 6 says that The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. This unarguably tells us that this subject is clearly notable under WP:NACADEMIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being president of NDU doesn't make the person notable. It should have coverage in multiple secondary sources not just one primary source. Fails GNG and WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holding the highest position in a public university does make one notable - it's clearly elaborated in WP:NPROF (criteria 6). NB: the "guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." (emphasis mine). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:UCS the Pakistan Army has more than half a million active duty personnel, with a little over two dozen lieutenant generals (equivalent to three-star general). Combined with the university role, there's strong grounds to consider this person notable. FWIW we appear to have an article of every single active duty US three star general. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPROF criteria 6. A clear WP:SNG is met, so WP:SIGCOV is not relevant as SNGs are a recognized alternative pathway to proving notability under policy. Some of the arguments against applying a valid SNG are at this point appearing like Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We follow policy, and SNGs are policy.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject passes C6 WP:NPROF as the president of the National Defense University. Kaizenify (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2024 (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.