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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daoud Bokhary

[edit]

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

The article does not satisfy the Notability (people) guideline - It relies on one main source: an article in a free newspaper The Standard in 2005; I would regard this as a primary source because the journalist interviewed Daoud Bokhary and expressed his/her own finding on Bokhary in the newspaper article. There are no multiple secondary sources on the person to demonstrate his notability. STSC (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article in The Standard is not by any means a primary source, as that newspaper has editorial independence and is not under the control of Daoud Bokhary. There is nothing unusual about a reliable source interviewing the subject of its coverage. This is standard journalistic practice. In my opinion, this person is notable, and if the article has shortcomings, they should be addressed by normal editing. I also disagree with the nominator's dismissal of all the other sources, as I think The Dawn is also a reliable source. I am unable to evaluate the Chinese language sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard's article itself does not prove the person's notability; and the person has not been the main subject of multiple published secondary sources as required in the WP:BIO's guideline. (The Dawn's article isn't wholly about Daoud Bokhary.) STSC (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO does not require that the coverage be "the main subject", instead it calls for "significant" coverage. It also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I think that this article easily meets that standard. As for STSC's comment on the talk page that the man is "portrayed like a saint" and the the article seems like "election propaganda", I must disagree. The article does a good job of summing up the sources. It would be a big mistake, in my view, to allow people's perceptions of his granddaughter to cloud this article. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please only discuss notability issue here, not my comments on the article's talk page.

I don't think just two online articles could be classified as "significant".

So far, you still could not prove his notability - Why this wealthy businessman is worthy of notice? Is it because of his wealth? Or because of his sons and granddaughter? Is he "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention"? STSC (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People are "notable" when reliable sources discuss them. I believe this man is notable because of the coverage of him in reliable sources, and my assessment of the encyclopedic value of the article. I concede that this may be a bordeline case, but I have expressed my opinion and STSC has their opinion. It would be great to have several more opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 116.48.93.150 (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —STSC (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. 1 gnews hit and all the gbooks hits are Books LLC which uses WP as a source. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources cited in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one Google News hit is the only main source on the person; most of the other sources cited are related to his family. STSC (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As Cullen328 correctly points out, a source does not need to be solely devoted to a topic to establish a presumption of notability for the topic, merely to cover the topic in more than a trivial fashion. WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "significant, interesting, or unusual" are subjective judgments; if I may be permitted to quote a very good essay on this topic, "notability is not fame and importance, [and] notability is not subjective". Deletion is called for when an article fails WP:N or passes it but fails WP:NOT; neither case has been demonstrated here. cab (call) 04:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just two outdated sources (in the year 2005 and 2008) would not justify a stand-alone article for him as a notable living person. The WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines clearly require of multiple reliable sources on the subject. In fact, 7 out of 10 sources cited are related to the members of his family. STSC (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are sources published in 2005 and 2008 "outdated"? This is an encyclopedia, not a current affairs web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed many statements made in the article were using present tense, I would expect the sources were the recent ones close to the creation date of the article (2010) but the article was mostly based on the source 5 years ago in 2005. I have tried to improve the article but could not find any sources on the living person apart from that source in 2005. STSC (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Cullen328's rationale that the interview by The Standard qualifies as an independent reliable source. An interview is a biography, and if the interviewer qualifies as an independent interviewer writing for a reliable source, the interview is an independent reliable biography. Although the other cited sources did not discuss Daoud in lengthy detail, the mere fact that Daoud is mentioned in many newspaper reports concerning his relatives' incidents means that Daoud is himself a noteworthy person. From WP:BIO#Basic criteria, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I think Daoud's case fall into this category and his article should be kept. Der yck C. 10:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited upwards from notable subordinate to parent or grandparent as per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO#Family. STSC (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about inherited notability, which would be the case if we cited a newspaper article about another Bokhary that doesn't mention Daoud, and claimed notability for Daoud. I'm referring to the notability with regards to mentions of Daoud in newspaper reports about other members of his family. Der yck C. 10:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mention of the person would not establish notability as per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Please see the examples given in: WP:N#cite_note-0. STSC (talk)

I think at this point we just have to agree to differ. From my judgement, many of the reports about other Bokharys give enough mention of Daoud to contribute some notability. Combined together (WP:BASIC) they give enough weight as "multiple independent sources may be combined". With the full interview published by The Standard (WP:SIGCOV/WP:N#cite_note-0), I think his independent notability has been established. Der yck C. 14:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV clearly states that a notable subject requires significant coverage which is more than a trivial mention. Besides, those news reports were cited for his family members, not for the person. It's ridiculous trying to use the trivial mentions of the person in those sources to establish his notability. STSC (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2011 (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.