![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2020. The result of the discussion was draftify. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a UPE tag but there is no evidence for it. Clearly a COI case though. There may be an employee of a school, and create an "official" account, but that doesn't mean they are being paid for this, either directly or indirectly. The account is effectively disclosed by using the name of the school as the userid, they are newbies and shouldn't be punished with a "$" banner for lack of adding a single sentence to their user page (all that is required for a paid editor). And since they have not added that sentence, and without evidence they actually are paid to edit the article, the banner is not appropriate in this case. -- Green C 14:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are some possibly reliable sources, should the current Articles for Deletion (AfD) case lead to the article being sent back to draft form:
Current refs World Urban Forum (ref 1, perhaps, minor); ARY News.tv (ref 2); BrandSynario (ref 3, perhaps: depends on how material is sourced); Geo News (ref 5) look reliable to me. Bloomsbury Festival (ref 20) looks reliable for uncontroversial material; ditto Events at Cambridge Students' Union (ref 22); and especially The News International (ref 31). Esowteric+ Talk 14:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The Career section is a close paraphrase or direct copy in parts, and it needs looking at. Short quotations can be used directly, in "quotes", with a reference after each quotation. Click on the report in the section-top banner and you'll see what needs changing. Esowteric+ Talk 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel both ‘Other work and media image’ and the ‘Talks and keynote addresses’ would be better if integrated into the career section. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The creator of this page could have simply retrieved their abandoned draft from here, [1]. Instead, they started again from the scratch, so the edits made by sock puppets previously are hidden. Also, their first edit was 30th July 2019, and their previous version of Draft on the subject with almost same references back from 2019 didn't meet the notability. The subject clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC as of 14th September, 2020.
Most of the awards won are not notable(on a national or international level), also a lot of references are spam, like for "Ethical Affairs Activist 2019" the reference takes you to the video on Facebook?, also the award won at UN it states "Best Climate Action Proposal" but in the reference, there is no mention of this. Also, there are many such references which are there just to give a feeling like this subject meets notability like reference number 14. [2]. Of course, the current main current/heavy editor Esowteric isn't looking at all of this, because he wants the article to remain in mainspace, because "I" nominated this page for AfD. (he will probably edit them now that I pointed). When reviewing this page for AfC, please make sure that the subject meets the notability, not because it was endorsed by editor Esowteric who have been here editing for 10+ years. I am sure he will try to influence his Wikipedia account age as he clearly stated in AfD, he stated that to avoid COI, he will instead submit the draft for review, so it can be passed. His sole intention is to make this article not undergo Draft or get deleted, because "I" nominated this page for deletion for not meeting the notability. He clearly shows interest in my edits as he followed me on the SPI investigation for the same, while supporting the creator of this page Az.jooma and all their sock puppets. Also, please note Esowteric weren't interested in editing this article which remained unedited last year and also this year when it was recreated, but has only and only shown interest after "I" nominated this for deletion. On a closing note, I want to say that only accept this article only and only if it meets notability criteria, not because some editor(who has been here for 10 years) has personally endorsed. I will keep this article on my watchlist. If I feel that this article has been passed not by notability but because of the influence/endorsed by an old Wikipedian user, then I will take this to AN/I. Thank you! AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Text should be written based on the actual content of available sources, rather than finding sources later in an attempt to back-up what editors want to write. Esowteric+ Talk 09:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Have reverted the manic cleanup tagging of this accepted AfC by AngusWOOF, the nominator of a previous deletion request (result was draftify). See WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Ayaz. Clear conflict-of-interest or other issues here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs looking at by uninvolved editors or by a previously-involved administrator? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2020. The result of the discussion was draftify. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has a UPE tag but there is no evidence for it. Clearly a COI case though. There may be an employee of a school, and create an "official" account, but that doesn't mean they are being paid for this, either directly or indirectly. The account is effectively disclosed by using the name of the school as the userid, they are newbies and shouldn't be punished with a "$" banner for lack of adding a single sentence to their user page (all that is required for a paid editor). And since they have not added that sentence, and without evidence they actually are paid to edit the article, the banner is not appropriate in this case. -- Green C 14:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are some possibly reliable sources, should the current Articles for Deletion (AfD) case lead to the article being sent back to draft form:
Current refs World Urban Forum (ref 1, perhaps, minor); ARY News.tv (ref 2); BrandSynario (ref 3, perhaps: depends on how material is sourced); Geo News (ref 5) look reliable to me. Bloomsbury Festival (ref 20) looks reliable for uncontroversial material; ditto Events at Cambridge Students' Union (ref 22); and especially The News International (ref 31). Esowteric+ Talk 14:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The Career section is a close paraphrase or direct copy in parts, and it needs looking at. Short quotations can be used directly, in "quotes", with a reference after each quotation. Click on the report in the section-top banner and you'll see what needs changing. Esowteric+ Talk 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I feel both ‘Other work and media image’ and the ‘Talks and keynote addresses’ would be better if integrated into the career section. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The creator of this page could have simply retrieved their abandoned draft from here, [1]. Instead, they started again from the scratch, so the edits made by sock puppets previously are hidden. Also, their first edit was 30th July 2019, and their previous version of Draft on the subject with almost same references back from 2019 didn't meet the notability. The subject clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC as of 14th September, 2020.
Most of the awards won are not notable(on a national or international level), also a lot of references are spam, like for "Ethical Affairs Activist 2019" the reference takes you to the video on Facebook?, also the award won at UN it states "Best Climate Action Proposal" but in the reference, there is no mention of this. Also, there are many such references which are there just to give a feeling like this subject meets notability like reference number 14. [2]. Of course, the current main current/heavy editor Esowteric isn't looking at all of this, because he wants the article to remain in mainspace, because "I" nominated this page for AfD. (he will probably edit them now that I pointed). When reviewing this page for AfC, please make sure that the subject meets the notability, not because it was endorsed by editor Esowteric who have been here editing for 10+ years. I am sure he will try to influence his Wikipedia account age as he clearly stated in AfD, he stated that to avoid COI, he will instead submit the draft for review, so it can be passed. His sole intention is to make this article not undergo Draft or get deleted, because "I" nominated this page for deletion for not meeting the notability. He clearly shows interest in my edits as he followed me on the SPI investigation for the same, while supporting the creator of this page Az.jooma and all their sock puppets. Also, please note Esowteric weren't interested in editing this article which remained unedited last year and also this year when it was recreated, but has only and only shown interest after "I" nominated this for deletion. On a closing note, I want to say that only accept this article only and only if it meets notability criteria, not because some editor(who has been here for 10 years) has personally endorsed. I will keep this article on my watchlist. If I feel that this article has been passed not by notability but because of the influence/endorsed by an old Wikipedian user, then I will take this to AN/I. Thank you! AngusMEOW ( chatter • paw trail) 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Text should be written based on the actual content of available sources, rather than finding sources later in an attempt to back-up what editors want to write. Esowteric+ Talk 09:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Have reverted the manic cleanup tagging of this accepted AfC by AngusWOOF, the nominator of a previous deletion request (result was draftify). See WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Ayaz. Clear conflict-of-interest or other issues here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps this needs looking at by uninvolved editors or by a previously-involved administrator? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)