Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeem Hashmi
- 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 no consensus due to insufficient participation; no prejudice against renominating sooner than usual. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Adeem Hashmi[edit]
- Adeem Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely autobiography conflict of interest by Pretext78 (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. bender235 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Weak keep Given that the subject died in Chicago 10 years ago, this is extremely unlikely to be an autobiography. There is a lot wrong with the article, in terms of tone, claims that need referenced etc., but if they can be supported the subject would be notable. I'm adding one external link to a site that seems unconnected with the subject, but has specific pages on his poetry. So this feels like one for rescue, with the help of someone familiar with Urdu poetics, possibly via WP:PAKISTAN. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per AllyD's comments and nominator's incorrect deletion rationale. He died 10 years ago, so it certainly can't be an autobiography. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- JFYI: WP:AUTO does not mean the subject wrote about himself. It means someone with a personal connection to the subject wrote the article. That could also be a son writing about his father or grandfather, or a doctoral student writing about his mentor. Adeem Hashmi is an autobiography per WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Response I disagree with Bender235 about his application of WP:AUTO to an article about a person who died 10 years ago. I've read that content guideline and it simply does not classify articles written by those with a personal connection to the subject as "autobiographies". The guideline only discusses articles that living people have written about themselves. Bender235 then links to a deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Wang Kim putting it forward as an example of acceptance of his interpretation of WP:AUTO. The problem is that this lengthy deletion debate does not refer to WP:AUTO even once. The article in question here may have problems, but it is most certainly not an autobiography, either by the plain meaning of that word, or by the wording of that Wikipedia content guideline. I suggest that Beder235 re-write his deletion argument. Cullen328 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- From {{uw-autobiography}}: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Do you take my point now? That Jin Wang Kim deletion debate was an example for a similar case. --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
COMMENT Arguments for or against deletion of an article should be grounded in policies and guidelines. Template messages are designed to make policy points, aimed at specific problems. They are not policy, or authoritative, in themselves. I believe there are issues with the text of the Template:Uw-autobiography. There is a discussion open at WT:UTMwhich seeks to rectify this. Pol430 talk to me 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- From {{uw-autobiography}}: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, instead of writing it yourself. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Do you take my point now? That Jin Wang Kim deletion debate was an example for a similar case. --bender235 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Response I disagree with Bender235 about his application of WP:AUTO to an article about a person who died 10 years ago. I've read that content guideline and it simply does not classify articles written by those with a personal connection to the subject as "autobiographies". The guideline only discusses articles that living people have written about themselves. Bender235 then links to a deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jin Wang Kim putting it forward as an example of acceptance of his interpretation of WP:AUTO. The problem is that this lengthy deletion debate does not refer to WP:AUTO even once. The article in question here may have problems, but it is most certainly not an autobiography, either by the plain meaning of that word, or by the wording of that Wikipedia content guideline. I suggest that Beder235 re-write his deletion argument. Cullen328 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- JFYI: WP:AUTO does not mean the subject wrote about himself. It means someone with a personal connection to the subject wrote the article. That could also be a son writing about his father or grandfather, or a doctoral student writing about his mentor. Adeem Hashmi is an autobiography per WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out that template, which hadn't been mentioned earlier. I believe that the language of the template is way too broad for the name of the template, and will take that issue to the appropriate area for discussion. Please provide your evidence, Bender235, that the article was written by a relative of the deceased poet and lyricist? More broadly, please provide evidence of conflict of interest, other than the fact that a new user has written an article about a subject they are clearly interested in, which is how new users typically start writing Wikipedia articles. Please let us know if you have discussed your specific concerns on the new user's talk page, or whether you just placed a deletion template there. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to discuss with Pretext78 (talk · contribs)? He didn't even react to the AfD notification yet. Obviously it is a single-purpose account, and he won't return to Wikipedia anyway. Adding that to the fact that we're talking about an unreferenced biography, I wonder what you expect from me. It's not my duty to disprove the subjects notability, it's the original authors duty to prove it in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- The way you discuss it is to go to the new user's talk page, welcome them to Wikipedia in a friendly way, and ask your questions about COI and verifiability. If you receive no response, so be it. What I expect from you is really quite simple: In this case, don't call an article about someone who died ten years ago an autobiography. More broadly with all your AfD nominations, please carry out WP:BEFORE Point #4, describe the subject of the article in a few words, and briefly report on the results of your good faith efforts to find reliable sources. It's that simple. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to discuss with Pretext78 (talk · contribs)? He didn't even react to the AfD notification yet. Obviously it is a single-purpose account, and he won't return to Wikipedia anyway. Adding that to the fact that we're talking about an unreferenced biography, I wonder what you expect from me. It's not my duty to disprove the subjects notability, it's the original authors duty to prove it in the first place. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out that template, which hadn't been mentioned earlier. I believe that the language of the template is way too broad for the name of the template, and will take that issue to the appropriate area for discussion. Please provide your evidence, Bender235, that the article was written by a relative of the deceased poet and lyricist? More broadly, please provide evidence of conflict of interest, other than the fact that a new user has written an article about a subject they are clearly interested in, which is how new users typically start writing Wikipedia articles. Please let us know if you have discussed your specific concerns on the new user's talk page, or whether you just placed a deletion template there. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless of WP:AUTO, WP:COI, could we please decide whether this acticle actually meets WP:AUTHOR? I don't think so. --bender235 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see that one of his books, Diana: the symbol of love: poetry has been translated into English. I recommend that we await an opinion from an Urdu speaking editor before deleting. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 15:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - 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.