Raqib Hameed Naik : Journalists journalling, regardless of the circumstances of their work, are not inherently notable.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Jammu and Kashmir .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 12:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: I believe that Raqib Hameed Naik is a notable individual deserving of a Wikipedia page based on the evidence provided by several reputable sources.  The deletion rationale stated that the article does not meet the WP:GNG (General Notability Guidelines), but I strongly disagree with this assessment.  Allow me to present the following compelling evidence from reliable sources that demonstrate Raqib Hameed Naik's notability:  1. The Washington Post : In an article published on here , a renowned international newspaper reported in-depth on Raqib Hameed Naik's work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org.  The article highlighted the importance and impact of his organization in tracking hate crimes committed by Hindus against Muslims, Christians, and lower-ranked castes in India.  It emphasized the real-time data collection and the substantial number of instances cataloged, solidifying the significance of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions.  2. American Kahani : Another reliable publication, American Kahani, featured an in-depth profile of Raqib Hameed Naik on here .  This article shed light on his journey as a Kashmiri Muslim journalist who had to flee India due to threats and harassment.  It highlighted his activism, reporting on the rise of the Hindu right in America, and his work as the founder of HindutvaWatch.org.  The piece underscored the challenges he faced and the importance of his mission to preserve evidence of human rights violations.  3. Newslaundry : A statement issued by the Al Jazeera Media Network, condemning the death threats and harassment faced by Raqib Hameed Naik, was reported by Newslaundry here .  This further attests to the attention and controversy surrounding his work, demonstrating that he has garnered recognition and support within the journalism community.  These three sources, among others, exemplify the impact and notability of Raqib Hameed Naik's contributions as a journalist and activist.  It is evident that his work has attracted significant attention both in India and internationally, emphasizing the importance of documenting his achievements on Wikipedia.  There are many more coverage he was interviewed on various crucial occasions like on The Siasat Daily here , The Intercept here and more.  As a respected platform for disseminating reliable information, Wikipedia plays a crucial role in sharing notable individuals' stories with the world.  Raqib Hameed Naik's work in tracking hate crimes, his personal experiences, and the threats he has faced deserve recognition, as they highlight important issues of human rights, journalistic integrity, and freedom of expression.  I think his notability is well-supported by multiple reliable sources, meeting the requirements of WP:GNG.  Thanks and Regards.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 13:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete [27] Washington Post story about him, but that's all I could find.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete fails WP:GNG one article in Washington Post is not enough to establish notability.  Godzilla99999 ( talk ) 11:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment :There is not a single article about this journalist.  He has been in coverage at more than one event.  The Washington Post did a profile article on him, and there are a number of reliable sources discussing him.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  That's a relatively solid WP:THREE presented above.  The Washington Post article relies a decent amount on subject interview, but there's enough reliably independent sigcov in it, a very rough estimate, after reomving attributed information and some "tangential" background would put it at 1000 words of SIGCOV.  The Newslaundry piece seems mostly independent, with a couple choice quotes from subject/related entities.  Call it 200 words of SIGCOV The American Kahani source does not seem to check the independent box it sources both the subject and the above Washington Post article too heavily.  So the strength of the first two sources along with other background from pieces like [28] seems to give us a good case for WP:BASIC — siro χ o 08:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Solidly notable per refs and analysis from TheChunky and Siroxo .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I find the argument that he meets WP:BASIC credible, Washington Post is about as gold standard a source as we tend to see.  He's a journalist and the founder of an organisation that may be notable, at least this is encyclopaedic information.  CT55555 ( talk ) 04:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only Washington Post is WP:RS ,American Kahani  is not a WP:RS source and the others are mere mentions.For a BLP one needs three solid WP:RS to meet WP:THREE and it is not case here.  115.99.21.190 ( talk ) 06:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:THREE is a shortcut to User:RoySmith/Three best sources , one editor's opinions.  It's not community-approved or developed policy, guideline or even essay.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:29, 31 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep