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. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Zeyan Shafiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A piece of advertisement. references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timberlack: I would invite you to reconsider your reasoning. There are several references on the article with extensive coverage of the subject. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timberlack: As per your contrib history, you've been commenting on indian businessmen related AFD's, within 9 minutes you passed comments on 3 AFD's, Can you share how did you check the references so quickly? Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 13:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you name the blocked sockpuppet account and point out the covert advertising? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, AfD nominator here. The article was published on 12 January by Zeyan, a blocked sockpuppet of Hums4r. The concern regarding covert advertising is for the company KashBook and Stalwart Esports. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Again MrsSnoozyTurtle, I’ve already clarified the part of using “Zeyan” account to publish it on the SPI page, moreover it was not published, they moved it back to draft space and then the page was edited and published by Fences and windows, you should perhaps have a look at the edit history, also point out the part that looked as “covert advertisement” to you, i am very interested in learning about it and removing it, since i was the major contributor to this article.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 22:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle. I see your concern about advertising, but I'm not sure what the solution is if the subjects pass WP:GNG and the articles are written neutrally. You would have a point if Stalwart eSports is not notable; Zeyan Shafiq would then only be notable for a single event (founding KashBook) and the article would have to be rewritten to focus on the event (i.e. "Founding of KashBook") rather than Shafiq. But as I mentioned, this depends on Stalwart eSports not being notable (and would be grounds for an AfD on that article too). Are you suggesting that? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since i have a COI, i won't suggest to keep or delete, i would just mention this comment. The Article was written by me and then reviewed by experienced wikipedians like Fences and windows, TheAafi, Kohlrabi Pickle and many more, the article was properly check and reviewed and was even posted to 'DYK' section. There has been a discussion earlier regarding the references as well and they were reliable as per wikipedia policies. I don't see 'Covert advertising from a blocked sockpuppet account' on this article because i've been a major contributor to this and apart from me all other editors who have edited this aren't sockpuppets/ blocked.Hums4r (Let's Talk) 06:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it carries much weight if it was published by your account, Hums4r, rather than that of your sock account Zeyan. Especially since the Hums4r account has now been blocked as the sockmaster. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep This article wasn't created by Zeyan, rather by Hums4r; see diff. Hums4r also appears to be major contributor of this article, and he is not blocked as a sockpuppet. The AfD nomination rationale is vague and not a valid reason. This article would remain because it merits a standalone article. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We may say for a while, Zeyan account was compromised, "but nonetheless this account was only used to move the article from draftspace to mainspace, and that action was subsequently reverted". This article has been moved to mainspace through the procedural process of AfC. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nothing but a bad-faith AfD! ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 09:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Keep: Per significant coverage that we find in a number of sources available in the article. Note: I've struck my earlier speedy keep comment after Hums4r's global block. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 19:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then please amend your comment instead of double voting. CUPIDICAE💕 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly a piece of promotion and advertisement. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Even the details provided about subject are baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER KASH (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali

• Keep. I edited the draft after it was raised on a noticeboard to ensure it was neutral and based in reliable sources and then I moved it live. I'm confident with subject is notable for more than one thing - starting KashBook and Stalwart eSports - and that the article is not unduly promotional. The coverage is indepth, specifically about the subject and in multiple independent reliable sources, mainly from India. The blocked account, which may be the article subject's, has not been identified as a sockmaster or sockpuppet for the article creator, who disclosed contacting the subject to get a photo - AfD is not SPI, so this is the wrong venue. p.s. I've been mentoring the article creator since then. Fences&Windows 13:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fences and windows, I do not get any indication from the sources that they are independent and reliable. Ultimately, all but one of the secondary sources appear to be part of a PR campaign. Each article essentially parrots the others, with all being published (for the most part) days apart. Perryprog (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources being similar doesn't necessarily mean it's a PR campaign; Indian press seems to copy each other even more than do Western media. These are the earliest sources I can find: [1][2][3]. KashBook then fell apart a few months later through jealousy and squabbling: [4], a source I'd missed before now. Fences&Windows 19:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the Stalwart esports is an international gaming organization, why it is not registered? and Kashbook isn't working also because that was also the act of Anti National activity. HACKER KASH http://www.catchnews.com/science-technology/kashmir-s-social-network-kashbook-is-no-more-and-not-because-of-the-government-76694.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER KASH (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HACKER KASH is a sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali

• We've discussed the same here, kindly read this fully to understand. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeyan_Shafiq#This_page_must_be_deleted. Hope it helps, also sign your comments. Hums4r (Let's Talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  HACKER KASH, whether Kashbook is still operational is irrelevant, because notability is not temporary. Whether Stalwart is "official" or not is also irrelevant - we use reliable sources to inform our inclusion decision, not such personal decisions about merit.

  Note to closing admin, I suspect some Kashmiri rivalry is affecting these !votes. Fences&Windows 16:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fences and windows, I suspect a similar thing. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that some of the votes are probably being influenced by rivalry, because their reasoning is suspect. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article seems like a promotional one. Even though the subject has been covered, it clearly fails to the relevance of existing an an independent article Me and Hums4r discussed this on my talk page and I have changed my mind. RegardsKichu🐘 ^Discuss 09:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: Its now only that I only noticed Hums4r was just a sock account. So I had a detailed study on this person Zeyan. He even shared this wikipedia article on social media for promotional purpose. So I would like to strongly stand with my early opinion. 'Delete Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: Wikipedia considers the Hums4r account to be a sockmaster – the Shahzada Iqbal, Zeyan and Prakrutiprajapanti accounts are considered to be sockpuppets – see WP:SPI/Hums4r/archive and block log.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The reason for nomination isn't clear, but in any event, I don't see anything that can't be fixed with a little rewriting. Certainly nothing that warrants WP:TNT. Separately, a couple of other editors have suggested that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG without explanation or reference to the several independent news articles that profile him in depth. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge Merge into KashBook. On further reflection, I am modifying my vote. I have been uncomfortable with how, despite the subject ostensibly passing GNG, the article reads so promotionally. I don't think the articles were paid for, but they have a human interest element to them (a precocious Kashmiri teenager creating something techy to work around a ban by the big bad government in Delhi). KashBook is not a revolutionary piece of software, nor did it take Kashmir by storm (it was in the top 22 social media platforms in the valley alone - very far from the top), and Stalwart Esports are not some wunderkind team. Both of them derive their notability from the circumstances in which they were created. I think the repeated wording (which Perryprog references in their vote) is a sign of poor journalism, not payment – I've encountered the same in sources for other India/Pakistan related articles I've contributed to – and it indicates that they've all copied off of each other. But this is good enough reason for me to doubt that these articles generate notability value. I'm also uncomfortable with how the subject is openly using the Wikipedia page for self-promotion on his social media platforms. People who pass GNG on their own are seldom bothered by whether or not they have a Wikipedia article. I am not persuaded that he is notable yet. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Amended vote from "Delete or merge into KashBook" to "Merge into KashBook" on 00:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• There is no article on KashBook to merge into.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I had expected that one of the original contributors to this article would have created one by now... but if not, then I am happy for it to be deleted or draftified and rewritten as an article on KashBook. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two of the deletion votes claim that references in third-party sources are just passing mentions. I checked four of the third-party citations and all of them were significant coverage.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this deletion debate has been going on, the article has been expanded and improved. There are enough citations to good quality independent sources that an editor could even remove two of them on the grounds of WP:CITETRIM, and he/she was probably right to do so.

There have been dubious editors on both sides of the AFD debate; some of these have been blocked for sock/meat puppetry. Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. In addition, there is an editor on each side whose activity on Wikipedia consists mainly of participating in AFDs or editing articles subject to AFDs. The pro-deletion sockpuppets argued that there was no evidence of not significant coverage; this was untruthful. There is an argument that Shafiq's companies used press releases - and the Indian/Pakistan press used these to write articles (just like Western newspapers use press releases from government organisations and from companies). There is nothing wrong with the press receiving press releases, doing some fact checking and then using information from the press releases.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 Personally I wish a checkuser could be run on every account/IP address that participated in this AFD, as I am sure it would catch a few more. this is pretty gross and egregious and I'd expect an editor of your tenure to WP:AGF. The implication here that anyone beyond blocked sock puppets are participating in some nefarious game is pretty disgusting on all counts. CUPIDICAE💕 21:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strongly supporting the the comment of TheAafi. –Kammil ⟨talk⟩ 05:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I strongly support to keep this article live as the subject is covered in various reliable sources. The article was even on DYK section. An article that was in the Main page section of Wikipedia must be enough notable, as it made its way there, I wonder why is this discussion going on. I also came across a delete comment from a user who forgot to sign the comment. Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Must be deleted. I strongly support to delete this article . Because it like to be promotional. I follow up this person and find he use this wiki page for verifying social media. Is a simple thing is notable for news reference? Beside wikipedia should not promote any thing like that, which break countries law. . Do something by keeping national thing first.Some person acted like they connect to this article in any condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your account name? On 17 February, you were canvassing for people to get this article deleted.[5][6] -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a note that Hums4r has been globally locked for xwiki spamming on multiple accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most indicative thing here is the wording repeated across multiple sources, which makes me think they were PR-campaigned articles—every single source that was published in 2017 seems to be a part of this. Just look at how many have incredibly similarly worded paragraphs on how they "learnt HTML tags by himself at the age of 11". The rest of the articles look similarly spammy, often with dubious red flags like image credits being from "special arrangement". The only source that could really possibly be considered reliable would be to Vice and Business Insider, neither of which are terrible good. The BI article also looks to be a part of the PR campaign due to its content. I'd encourage the participants to throughly read through some of the sources listed, as they all appear to be very sub-par. Perryprog (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my several previous analysis of the sources - this is a stellar PR job, but ultimately unencyclopedic as it's not organic coverage (it's paid for) and are regurgitated press releases and user submissions to shady media outlets. CUPIDICAE💕 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Shafiq is promoting himself, but so do many other people. If India Today, The Economic Times, The Times of India,[7] The Nation (Pakistan), Vice India, and Ravi Agrawal are all shady sources that publish for pay then we'd best bulk delete most articles about India and Pakistan. For the esports story there was an Agence France-Presse newswire,[8] which is how many stories find their way into the media. Fences&Windows 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and windows Actually, most Indian (and Pakistani) news sources indeed do exactly that, which is why a lot of them aren't regarded as reliable sources (the Times of India failed a discussion at RSN and editors are advised against using it, also see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). Having said that, your link looks like an actual story as opposed to advertorial. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about this, Black Kite, that appears (to me) to be a regurgitated press release as opposed to organic journalism, which is par for the course for TOI. CUPIDICAE💕 14:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fences and windows, I trust @Praxidicae's judgement on sources & tbh I think I trust them on this also. @Black Kite is also apt when they say most Indian sources do just that(I would know, I’ve lived in India and I’m part Indian) The aforementioned sources you listed save for TOI are actually regarded to as reliable sources in India but we must keep in mind that reliable sources and reliable pieces aren’t one and the same & reliable sources also publish unreliable pieces(more prevalent in Nigeria though where I reside currently). Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have just removed a "Keep" !vote from the page as I have indefinitely blocked the user for threats against others, and attacking an editor who has commented "Delete" here. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The article has completely advertising taste and no doubt it’s a part pf a PR work. I checked the Zeyan Shafiq’s Social Media platforms and found that the article is a paid edit. Because on 14th January the user User:Fences_and_windows moved the Draft:Zeyan Shafiq from Draft space to main space. On the same date after the article done he posted screenshot of Wikipedia article on his story on Facebook. Also yesterday their Facebook page Stalwarts eSports connecting Stalwart Esports got verified and he shared it on his Facebook account. In my conclusion both of these Article Zeyan Shafiq and Stalwart Esports are well planned PR paid edit for social media branding and advertising. Also the edit history of both articles looks spam Ravishingstar (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We knew the article subject was aware, the article creator admitted contacting him to get photos. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stalwart Esports. I advised Hums4r not to work on that article but he ignored me. If Shafiq's article is kept then I'd favour merging it into his bio, but I won't comment there. Fences&Windows 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I want to keep some question

1.If any one open a esports team which not yet participate in any notable competitive game even not win a compitision how may it notable?

2.If i issue some paid or free pr or news in this simple thing is it notable?

3.If everyone start to do this cheap thing like zeyan for verifying their social account in future it could be more bad.

4. If one create a app seeing youtube cheap course he is not a web develoer or else respective member said zeyan.

5.Last month i crate a video chatting app if i submit some news article by paying money can I will be eligible for wiki page.That's nit fair with the greatest person of the earth because :Wikipedia is the place where great people get approved.

Do something like this cheap thing.

In pubg championship many indian team won and perticipate but they don’t di this types of thing for social handle verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.163 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added multiple more reliable source references to the Zeyan Shafiq as per WP:RS and WP:BLPRS and WP:SIGCOV. It should meet the basic WP:GNG to fit in. Regarding paid release, Indian articles usually copy from other sources and post them. They're not likely to be paid and all the Paid Releases usually come with warning's or are labelled as brand posts so doesn't look like paid releases but they can be removed and the article could be edited accordingly and saved. Also via talk page this article has been nominated for DYK and shouldn't be removed on the basis of unreliable sources rather should be edited and those Unreliable sources should be removed or used as primary references to enrich the article. Subject's work has been widely covered as well can be checked by simple search over google. The esport organisation has been in print/TV news for their collaboration. I'm posting this to save the article because this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry. If required I'll remove the unreliable sources. 2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to redact your egregious personal attack, read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. CUPIDICAE💕 21:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks i just replied with my knowledge of organic/reliable and paid sources, why did you think it wasn't in good faith and it was a personal attack? Let the closing admin and the community decide and my response wasn't for anyone specifically it was general for the Closing admin.2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Praxidicae. Your comment "this AfD has been influenced by Bad-faith votes and Rivalry" is at odds with WP:AGF towards other editors. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — The sources appear to be paid for & based on that I cannot and would not support an article based on unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IMO paid sources are clearly labelled as 'brand posts' or 'paid' on the website's, these articles are organic I've added few more, maybe have a look and decide. Commenting in good faith only.it's your opinion afterall. 2409:4050:E9B:4CE2:495C:1A7D:80DB:8083 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Commissioned sources are, at best, primary sources and as this is a biography such sources are pretty much worthless for anything. Whether or not the outlet has EiCs that do their job and disclose the paid-for articles is immaterial; if it's a commissioned article being cited for a biography, it needs to hit the bricks. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is this «notable for more than one thing - starting KashBook and Stalwart eSports»? Really? Perhaps the leading paragraph should mention what these two things are, concisely, then? In the current revision I am not convinced that the notability criteria are met. --Gryllida (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea - I have done it for Kashbook (because the citations explained in simple terms what Kashbook is).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just dropping in to add that there is at least one reliable source: India Connected: How the Smartphone Is Transforming the World's Largest Democracy, a book published by Oxford University Press, that acknowledges the significant attention Shafiq received. It does so in this line: That evening, I met Zeyan Shafiq, who had become something of a tech celebrity in Kashmir. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: This is WP:BLP1E, He can’t be notable just because of one event that has happened years ago. The reason for not voting Del is to confirm:- Since Kashbook has had extensive coverage, does it qualify as notability? Can someone explain? -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep or weak keep few sources about e-sport work , so isn't BLP1E. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge the biography for which it has received media attention is Kashbook (a non notable app with no historical records and popularity). The available sources do not discuss the app or its developer(s) independently, but they have covered Censorship in Kashmir for which the app has received media coverage. In general terms, it fails to satisfy WP:NSOFT and WP:BIO. None of the sources discuss the subject separate from government bans. I would also suggest merge the article to Censorship in Kashmir. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep requires some writing.looks to meet wp:gng wp:rs easily with many secondary sources,books and was on main page as per talk page.also wp:atd says if editing can improve the page,it should be edited rather then deleted. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to the closing admin: ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk · contribs) joined here just a day ago. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:25, 1 March 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.