Sunny Ali: References on the page and in a WP:BEFORE found nothing in-depth, fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA , or talk about his company.  I did find this which isn't real flattering but still does not add up with others for notability.  CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Not quite sure I understand the reference to WP:NEWSORGINDIA when the subject is Pakistani.  Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 09:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Goldsztajn : , it isn't about where the person is from, but where the publication is from. And, I think that section needs updating as it applies to other countries as well. Many publications listed in that guideline do not discriminate based on nationality as I have seen people from the United States with references from those publications. It all comes down to analysis of each source. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fully agree that online business media (among others) worldwide have problems of advertorialism and should be treated with healthy doses of skepticism; however, with NEWSORGINDIA I think best not to apply the specific circumstances that arose in one country to another.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So none of the sources used are useful then.  We can't keep the article if that's the case.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The effect of my statement is the need for specific source analysis, nothing more.  In the absence of that, there's only assertions.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP Above article has 10 solid newspaper references now with in-depth coverage on Sunny Ali.  I added 2 more categories and also improved the existing references.  In my view, it meets WP:GNG ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 22:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not see how the references were improved as none were added that I can see.  Can you point out the specific references out of the "10" which are in-depth and do not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA ?  I would be glad to have another look.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 02:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We are supposed to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. I am afraid we are risking getting stuck on WP:NEWSORGINDIA here and NOT show due respect to the thousands and thousands of legitimate newspapers both in India and Pakistan in business for many many decades!!! Let us leave it to the Wikipedia community to decide which sources are unreliable and can not be used as references on Wikipedia. The above article already has 10 newspaper references that are considered 'reliable sources' per WP:PKRS . I ask the nominator to please take another look... Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 18:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It was already decided by the Wikipedia "which sources are unreliable and can not be used as references."  This is why NEWSORGINDIA exists. It is something that was decided by WP:CONSENSUS . Also, no one said the references are not from "legitimate newspapers."  That is not the purpose of NEWSORGINDIA. According to that guideline, we should be careful about blindly accepting references from legitimate newspapers and look deeper into each one. For example, The Express Tribune appears to be a reliable source ("legitimate newspapers" as you say). So we assume good faith (not blind faith) that the references from this publication are good. However, NEWSORGINDIA suggests looking deeper so while looking at this The Express Tribune reference used on the Wikipedia page for Sunny Ali, you can see that the byline is "Tech Desk" (not a staff writer which indicates it is regurgitation of a press release or paid content). An online search also shows this reference which is similar in tone (as if a press release) and marked as a "sponsored post" (also posted exactly one day apart). These are all signs that this particular reference from The Express Tribune is a sponsored post and should not be considered for notability. -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Only source #4 is listed as reliable per sourcebot, and it's an interview.  The rest appear to be non-RS and I can't find much else we could use.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While I remain concerned about the misapplication of NEWSORGINDIA as if a wave at a completely different country's media implicates all media in Pakistan, this is a promo piece that mostly regurgitates PR (NEWSORGINDIA doesn't allow one to draw that conclusion given there's no overlapping of sources).   Nevertheless, this August 2023 RS piece "Tears of a get-rich-quick guru" offers an extensive and detailed analytical assessment of Ali.  I'm on the fence - there's a possible case for TNT; although judicious editing and correct use of sourcing could possibly fix this.    Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For NEWSORGINDIA, I consider this to apply to the entire Indian subcontinent .  As far as the sourcing, I would agree with your assessment of Rest of World piece you linked to being extensive and detailed and helps establish notability, assuming that publication is considered a reliable source.  That would make a single source assuming other would agree with us.  Here is an evaluation of the other sourcing on the page and unfortunately do not see anything in-depth that would allow for page cleanup.  There is overlapping of sources as well.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply  ] 1. The Express Tribune , While this shows a byline, the article is an interview.  The article is about his advice to youth.  There are only four sentences “about him” in the entire article.  2. The Express Tribune , Byline on this is “Tech Desk” which indicates either churnalism or paid media.  It is also about the company where he is CEO, not about him.  3. Business Recorder , churnalism and about the company.  Sunny Ali gives a quote but there is nothing about him in the reference.  4. Aurora , Interview with the subject.  Simple Q&A with no depth about the subject.  Cannot be used to establish notability.  5. Rest of World , A single sentence saying he runs a Facebook group that offers paid ecommerce training.  6. The Express Tribune , reference is churnalism or paid as it shows a byline of “Our Correspondent” which a deeper search reveals it is based on this press release  .  7. Daily Times , link times out so I cannot view the source.  8. Associated Press of Pakistan , quote from the subject, not “about” the subject.  Also churnalism as this is printed in a few other publications such as here and here  .  9. PT Profit , more quotes and advise from Sunny Ali, but not “about” Sunny Ali.  10. Daily Times , link times out so I cannot access it, but based on the title and the other sources in this assessment, I am going to assume it is more quotes from the subject since the headline is not about him.  11. Phone World , subject isn’t even mentioned in this reference.  12. Nation , written by a business partner of Ali and is basically a glowing recommendation of Ali.  Nothing I would consider independent.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Any comments on the source analysis?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 06:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment My concern still remains that the nominator shows a tendency to stretch things and use a broad brush .  For example, WP:NEWSORGINDIA does not say anywhere that it applies to the entire Indian subcontinent, yet the nominator assumes it does!  He's trashing most of the existing newspaper references as suspects for paid journalism.  Where is the clear evidence that they are?  In my view, promotional content in the article can be deleted or modified.  How can I function as a Wikipedia editor if I start treating all the newspapers as suspects?  ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 17:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You can take your concerns to ANI if you feel I am in the wrong.  However, you continue to assert as if I have a bias against Indian news publications which is not the case.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final  relist.  We could use some more new voices/opinions here.  And rather than going after other editors, please engage with the source analysis that has been provided.  Just stating notability exists isn't as persuasive as pointing to sources that help establish SIGCOV.  Being vague or getting personal never helps in an AFD discussion, focusing on the quality of sources does.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The person is notable, the article has 10 sources and the nominator does not give an extensive reason for the nomination.  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I cannot find a policy or guideline that says something is notable if it has 10 sources.  Also, "extensive" is subjective.  Reasoning was given above so feel free to refute it using policy-based reasoning.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Went back and took another good look at the article.  Cleaned up and removed some promotional content.  Sunny Ali and his company have received significant coverage in reliable sources from many major English-language newspapers of Pakistan which is the requirement for WP:GNG .  All of the newspaper articles address Sunny Ali and his company directly and in detail which is the requirement for WP:SIGCOV ...  Ngrewal1 ( talk ) 02:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please Keep it meets the criteria for WP:GNG .  2404:3100:1893:FBE2:1:0:305E:EFBF ( talk ) 20:44, 28 November 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: no consensus