Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal[edit]

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

Shameless autobiographical/self-promotion. Biker Biker (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article requires cleanup, but I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at any of the sources? urdutoday.com is mostly a web forum. unibook.com is a book sales website. urdudost.com is for people to self-publish their work. None of these references establish notability, all they do is support the assertion that the article's main author is a self-publicist and that the article should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a related WP:AIV entry, placed immediately prior to the entry here. Let's keep this in one forum. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even looked at the sources? Sehgal is profiled in not one, not two, not even three but four international newspapers. Notability is easily established (see the talk). Obvious keep -- Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd really like to read the supporting sources. Unfortunately, the citations do not include a link to online versions of the Times of Karachi or News International articles. I'm assuming good faith that the sources really are there and establish notability as required. — Brianhe (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, the scans are here. All listed sources are there. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:RS. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns Dear Sir,Biker Biker, I have some concerns that what you are raising questions ,I think they already have been discussed previousely, and editors reached the consensus,by User:Nolelover,User:brianhe,and User:Jeepday, and they closed the issue,but you are raising it again without proper checking Talk:Ehsan Sehgal, and references.My question is that is it not voilation of consensus??. Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Ehsan is saying is that three editors (including myself) had come to the same conclusion of his notability. See my link above. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIthout proper checking? How do you know what checking I have done? It is perfectly valid to raise a concern about an article that has been subject to such autobiographical abuse. If the article does survive - and if that is the wish that is reached by consensus then so be it, I am very willing to accept consensus - then perhaps you would be best placed to stay well away from it. Your autobiographical intentions are crystal clear by the fact that your own user page even redirects to the article. Step away from the article and let others decide on its merit. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biker, you are biting someone who has no idea what WP policies are and who has always accepted them when we corrected him. Please bring it down a notch? You really haven't raised many valid concerns about the notability of Ehsan. Perhaps you could clarify your "checking"? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Hello, Biker Biker,please remove your wording "Shameless autobiographical", it is not a way to express your concerns,and it is also not suitable for the dignity of wikipedian editors,"self promotion" wording is enough to criticize someone.Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I beleive that Biker Biker was correct to bring his concerns to the community via AfD. Wording could have been a little less bitish, but live and learn. The removal of questionable references, and the retention of WP:RS makes it clear that the subject meets WP:N. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article requires structural improvement, otherwise the subject is generally meets notability. Mar4d (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (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.