Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taufik Rosman

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 redirect‎ to Wikimedian of the Year#Wikimedian of the Year (formerly Wikipedian of the Year). This discussion appears close, but a full read through the input (thank you all for explaining your choices) shows there is consensus against a standalone article given the degree of sourcing focusing on Rosman's award and questions about the independence of the sourcing. Should there be another target where these Wikipedians can be discussed, the history remains under the redirect as no case has been made for the deletion of the material. Star Mississippi 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Rosman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a BLP1E. Also, Wikimedian of the Year is not a major award recognized by the public. I'd say something like an Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor would be and WotY isn't in the same category at all. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would say the article is non-notable. First of all, the only thing this person is known for, is the Wikipedian of the Year award, which barely passes any notability guidelines for people. Secondly, little information is known for the person nor any event he is involved, is consider significant. I'm inclining towards the Delete option. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to !vote because I met Taufik recently and it feels improper to specify a desired outcome when I'm at risk of a COI. In regards to other PAGs, I think he has more significant coverage and passes GNG where I wouldn't. From there, I think it's a debate about whether BLP1E or ANYBIO is more applicable. I'll leave that for others to decide. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover in my comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for similar reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover: Wikimedian of the Year is a significant award, even if not the most important award someone can win. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. clearly is not true: their role in winning Wikimedian of the Year was quite substantial, being the winner of the award. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An employee/volunteer recognition award by a non-profit with revenues of 180 million USD is certainly significant to those involved with the non-profit. However, it is hardly a well-known or significant award (what ANYBIO requires) given the lack of accompanying news stories about the award. As someone who is involved with that non-profit it's hardly surprising you consider it significant, but Wikipedia's standards are higher than this. So unless coverage can be found for this recipient there should be no article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- preamble though: I really disagree with the nominator's attempt to set the bar on major awards at Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. The bar for award notability is far lower than that. That aside, I don't think that Wikimedian of the Year is at that level in itself (even the article on the award doesn't provide justification for considering it in a major award category). It is, though, the type of award that in many cases will be accompanied by coverage showing that the broader public has already recognized the efforts of the writer/editor/contributor and thus counts for something in my book, but not enough to rise above the notability bar. If Wikimedian of the Year wants to include a "Brief Biographies of Winners" section and include a little bit on each non-blue-linked winner, I'd have no objection. But there just aren't enough RSes here so far to indicate that the award was recognized as significant for this winner. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's covered significantly by four independent sources. I'm unsure of the reliability of the other three, but the Straits Times looks pretty solid to me as the "most-widely circulated newspaper in the country". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other three, Rise Malaysia! seems way too promotional to count for anything, the Rakyat Post looks like something that'd count towards GNG, and Malaysia Today looks like it could as well. I meant what I said above that he meets GNG, it's those other factors that make things more complicated. Anyways, I'll refrain from commenting further given my obvious COI here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per my comment on Clover's AfD; although Rosman has a greater claim to notability, this is still ultimately an ANYBIO fail and BLP1E. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the existing references, including the 3 added by মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন since the start of the AfD, were all occasioned by his becoming Wikimedian of the Year, and although one of those added, like the pre-existing Diff reference, is by Wikimedia itself (the Bangla reference), the others demonstrate extensive press coverage and together they give a fair amount of information about him, some of which we weren't including. I was able to expand the article into a decent bio, considering his age (his birth date is referenced, which I made clearer). Also, doing a bit of WP:BEFORE while trying to decide which way to !vote on this article, I found an extended news article that devotes a lot of its space to him while not being about the award at all, and a mention in a 2021 WHO news release. That tips me over the edge, I believe he's received enough coverage in reliable sources for his career as a Malaysian Wikimedian to merit a freestanding article. Especially so since the 2 sources I added use variants of his name, starting with Mohd, and since I am unable to search in Bahasa Malaysia let alone other Malaysian languages or Bangla. Those who can may well find more; and some of the coverage may not be online, or not be indexed where I can see it from the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article. The name in searches thing doesn't surprise me because I learned a little about how Malaysian names work when talking to Taufik. Apparently his father's name is literally Rosman. Also, his award was so much of a bigger deal than mine. As far as Canada is concerned, I'm a nobody. But he had TV reporters take a bus ride from Malaysia to Singapore to cover this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was better coverage offline or in other languages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fundamentally this is still a WP:BIO1E situation. Moreover, in my opinion we must apply more stringent notability standards, basically on IAR grounds, to biographies of individuals whose main claim to notability is for being Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia as a whole and all of us here have a degree of COI in relation to such biographies and there is an element of self promotion for the project when they are kept. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Let me say I greatly appreciate their contributions, but there is not inferred notability from winning the Wikimedian of the Year award. From my searches, I don't believe there's sustained coverage on the individual and all the coverage was related to that at the time award. As such, I believe it makes the most sense to redirect it to Wikimedian of the Year. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WMotY is in no way "well-known" or "significant" outside of our own community. This does not pass ANYBIO, and the subject is not exempt from standard GNG sourcing. The sources are local news about the award alone each with largely the same content, not substantial coverage of his biography and I believe the WMotY page covers this content adequately. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir's additional sources. The page meets GNG, the topic is notable, especially in his home nation, and editors are implying that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are less important than they actually are and then using that opinionated reasoning to lessen the accomplishments of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a BIO1E. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, no sustained coverage and the award is nowhere close to the threshold for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have about equal numbers o participants arguing for Keep, Delete or Redirect (which I think is a good ATD if this article is not Kept). As an aside (I usually get in trouble for these), in my time on Wikipedia and AFD in particular, I've noticed that editors set a much higher bar for articles on individuals who happen to edit on one of the projects than they set for individuals in other areas. It's really tough for a person who also edits to have an article that is not nominated for deletion even if there are decent sources establishing their notability which would otherwise be accepted for non-editors. I think there is an over-compensation for any COI or bias that might also be present. That's just an observation, not a "vote" on what should happen with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not many articles covering this person, so seems to fail GNG. Source 1 is the best and it's a marginal RS per Source Highlighter. Others are about activities, not the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: You don't consider SIGCOV about the individual's activities to be relevant to an article about an individual? Just trying to make sure I understand your argument here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the other articles were focused on the person, rather on Wikimedia activities/conferences and things, where this person is mentioned. I was hoping to see more stories about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. The Wikimedia award isn't enough to establish notability on its own, although I agree with what [User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] stated above regarding the bar for award notability being far lower than awards like the Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. Congratulations to Taufik and I hope he accomplishes even greater things, but for now, this is WP:BIO1E. Mooonswimmer 16:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Xegma(talk) 17:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery Slope, redirecting the last two Wikimedian of the Year winners would be an unneeded ride to the bottom. Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and the Foundation are notable enough for the yearly award winners to deserve an article, even if the world at-large hasn't caught onto that yet. In Rosman's case, his national media did, which gives the page enough sources to meet GNG. Removing Rosman and Clover from the ranks of notables purposely underestimates, and thus denigrates, the project's proper place in civilization's rush of culture occurring in the 21st century. Please consider stopping here and reversing course. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be BLP1E, but The Straits Times, Free Malaysia Today, and the slightly lesser coverage in the New Straits Times are all quite solid sources, so I'm not convinced by the coverage/source quality arguments above. CMD (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2024 (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.