Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idress

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. While there was significant support for keep in this discussion, primarily based on the subject passing ENT and GNG due to the existence of multiple sources found in broader BEFORE checks, there was a clear majority who supported one or both arguments against sourcing (either that they weren't reliable, or that there wasn't sufficient in-depth coverage)

As there was policy-backing for both sides, including consideration of each other's reasoning, ultimately it came down to a numbers game, with a clear outcome for deletion Nosebagbear (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idress

[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)

References do not show WP:SIGCOV and do not meet WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Sham Idrees (corrected spelling of his name), As sham idrees clearly comply with WP:SIGCOV and meet with WP:GNG. Visit following links to look at significant coverage from National Newspapers & TV channels of Pakistan:

He also meets 2nd Point of WP: Entertainer with a very large fanbase of 6.5M Facebook fans 1, 4.1M youtube fans (1.92M Sham Idrees +2.16M Sham Idrees Vlogs + 132K The Car Guys), 1M+ Instagram fans 2. So there should be no question to his notability. Thank you. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The available references do not show the notability of the subject. The references are either Gossip articles or PR/announcements and not from WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS that is independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GermanKity Please elaborate which of above links are Gossip articles or PR/announcements? If such is the case, then we should block citations from all these sources (Dawn.com, The News (Pakistan), The Express Tribune, Daily Ausaf, Daily Pakistan, Samaa TV and Bol News), as they're posting PR stuff in name of their editorial. It's really shame that all these Media giants are now posting PR stuff instead of News.(Maybe Corona hit them hard), Thanks. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia community decides which newspapers and sources are WP:RS and not an individual alone from among us. Individuals, including me, are free to give their views or choose to make sweeping statements here. Like I said before in my comments, I consider most of the above listed sources as Reliable Sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have noticed this article has been further improved by the article creator User:Abdulhaseebatd by adding many third party independent and reliable newspaper references as he has listed them above here for us. By the way, I checked them before writing these comments that they all work. In my view, this article, after these improvements, passes WP:GNG now. Also I noticed SharqHabib above has already 'Moved this page' to the correct name spelling of the article title. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I should note that the Sharq's !vote does not appear to be policy-backed, but given GermanKity has contested the grounds for Keep, further discussion remains warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above comments, seems to pass WP:ENT and WP:GNG. But the formatting on the references needs to be improved. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the gossip-rags listed above are definitely NOT RS. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes gng as all those refs are reliable sources from pakistan Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 09:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GEN and ENT. Please also refer to WP:NYOUTUBE. This article lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources are not enough to establish notability. They're only gossips, discussing family celebrations, road accidents, feud between Youtubers etc. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ngrewal1- He is notable among Indians and Pakistani. Most of mentioned sourced in the page are considered reliable. Hasan (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a quite controversial deletion discussion on whether the cited sources are reliable or not. I still believe those are reliable third party news references, with most being improved recently by the initial creator. And it also seems to meet the ENT# point 2 as the person has achieved huge popularity among Indians and Pakistanis both online and offline. In other words, I find Ngrewal1's explanation plausible and agree with them. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENT and lacks independent reliable sources. Also this has been deleted before via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idrees (2nd nomination) so I think this discussion should be updated as 3rd nomination since the page name was already updated. Regards. Kinngjatt (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Kinngjatt, I'm really interested to know that how he fails WP:ENT when he got significantly large Cult fan following? As I remember even his newborn daughter's Fb page was able to pull up 125K followers shortly after her birth(Now she has 278K followers). Are those follows were not from his cult followers who even liked a page of a newborn with no content? By the way I'm repeating that he has 6.5M Facebook fans, 4.1M youtube fans (1.91M Sham Idrees + 2.17M Sham Idrees Vlogs + 132K The Car Guys) and 1M+ Instagram fans. So it'll really interesting to know how he fails WP:ENT. Secondly how citation from these biggest Pakistani media groups like ARY, DAWN, GEO/JANG, SAMAA, DUNIYA, BOL are not Independent and Reliable. Thank you ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulhaseebatd, the number of social media followers has nothing to do with notability. What Wikipedia needs is that WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability for entertainers, Youtubers etc. "If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Please refer to WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS for future reference. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheBirdsShedTears Well, maybe the number of social media followers has nothing to do directly with notability, but it has much to do with WP:ENT(point I tried to establish by coming up with his social media stats. I never tried to establish his notability merely by giving his social media stats). I've already shared some sources above and you can find other by visting Sham Idrees. Thank you ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’delete’’’ client fails GNG.2A04:4A43:497F:B20E:F97E:192:BC27:51B5 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or move to draft if a case can be made that substantial reliable sources exist that could be added to the article. A YouTube prankster whose coverage derives from a feud with another non-notable YouTuber. BD2412 T 05:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sham Idrees gained popularity after having his feud with a YouTuber. I remember Sham used to be known in the YouTube community of Pakistan, all these sources of Sham are of the past, but if you talk about 2020 and 2021, Sham has become like an irrelevant person in Pakistan now, each of his video can't even get a million views, so the final thing is Sham is no more well-known in Pakistan, there won't even be a single source about Sham in 2021. RaziNaama (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RaziNaama Actually Ducky Bhai gained popularity after that feud, not Sham Idrees (who was quite popular at that time), Ducky gained 100,000 subscriber in very start of feud, meanwhile sham and his fellows lost many subs. But anyway there's difference between Popularity and Notability. Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RaziNaama: It doesn't matter here. You admitted that he was once popular. Even if popularity decreases if he's once known for his works, he will be still considered notable on Wikipedia. And you have joined Wikipedia 12 days ago, and it seems surprising that you are participating in AFD discussion. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! There is indeed a sockpuppet investigation on you. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Please note that RaziNaama is indefinitely blocked as a result of Sockpuppet investigations. He previously voted against this article by his account SharqHabib (later removed his vote himself). ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't about reliability of sources. Coverage is not in-depth. Sources are not good content-wise ("Pakistan origin popular You tubers Sham Idrees and wife Seher celebrate birth of baby girl" et cetera). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources listed above by Ngrewal1 are not in-depth and do not rise to the level of significance required by WP:SIGCOV. Likewise does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems ready for a consensus to be made after it's been in AfD for more than 5 weeks. Does not require a full 7 days of relisting before closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr. Universe (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the discussion happening here may be illuminating, if no rough consensus can be reached, the article by default will be kept. An article can't stay in AfD forever, and this one has already been discussed more than 5x longer than AfD discussions are meant to last. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — WP:NEXIST states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Google search results about Sham Idrees clearly indicate that there must be independent, reliable sources with significant coverage as there are tens of articles about him from Pakistan's mainstream media outlets like Geo News(one of most popular Urdu news channel), ARY News(Top most popular Urdu news channel), Dawn.com(oldest Pakistani newspaper), The News (Pakistan)(largest Pakistani newspaper), The Express Tribune(National Newspaper), Daily Ausaf, Daily Pakistan, Samaa TV, Bol News and many more. Also note that large sum of popular pakistani Newspapers, TV channels are in urdu & many of Urdu newspapers don't have their websites(finding there content on internet is quite impossible). Thank you. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a relist after a preceding relist followed by 4:0 !votes is very problematic. An administrator needs to take a careful look at this discussion, potentially remove some content (such as the relist comment and the subsequent bias-inducing and procedurally false comment by the relister), and assess viability of any further discussion after it was adulterated by the tendentious relist. See Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: There was a 17 (!!!) day gap between the last relist and mine. I might have closed the AfD as a "delete" if I could, but delete decisions require an admin, so I relisted. What else was supposed to be done? Just let it continue going for far beyond the usual lifetime of an AfD discussion, while being neglected by admins who are supposed to be making close decisions on the backlog of AfD discussions (especially for cases where non-admins can't close it because the decision isn't unanimous enough or the consensus is leaning towards delete)? Your uses of the words "adulterated" and "tendentious" are inappropriate here and come across far too confrontational. I relisted because this discussion has been going on for more than 5x the intended lifetime of an AfD discussion and a decision now needs to be made. This has nothing to do with "adultery" or "tendentiousness". Please just assume a bit of good faith for editors that are just trying to help the Wikipedia project by working on reducing the size of the backlog. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Abdulhaseebatd's reasoning above. NemesisAT (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nominator Riteboke (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2021 (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.