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 delete. v/r - TP 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The more I look into this article the more I realize that Wikipedia is being misused for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)) had substantial support towards delete but it was the ignorance of the nominator (relative of the subject) which outweighed and ruined all sensible arguments.
Years have elapsed, to date there are no results of the subject on Google news or Google books. Entirely fails WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orientls: So the first, second, and third Keeps were wrong since as closing admin SoWhy comented in third result - No policy requires sources to be in English nor that they are available online; per WP:NEXIST their existence is sufficient. Consensus was that sufficient such sources exist to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC.2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this BLP managed to avoid getting deleted in the previously deletion nominations due to the reason that BLP was very cluttered with unreliable sources and OR which gave the impression that the subject is notable. However, this time around I've managed to cleanup the BLP, remove OR as well all the unreliable references cited previously. And keeping in view of the current coverage, I can safely conclude that the subject fails to meet GNG as well WP:AUTHOR. I still see most of the coverage is either trivial or merely namecheking while the rest of the coverage discuss his non-notable work.
Also keeping in view of the fact that the subject has been writing his WP bio for a long time now for self-promotion purpose, there's a possibility that all the coverage currently cited in the BLP was produced on the behest of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your neutrality is visible, I found the real reason as you practiced in these diffs - and you attacked this subject-- 1, 23,
4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolelover: It is an opinion piece written by a writer not affiliated with the source, in the form of an interview which make it fall under self-published content. --Saqib (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions in unreliable columns is far from meeting WP:GNG. Are you agreeing that an author from Nederlands is having no significant coverage, not even in Dutch publications? Orientls (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistani Urdu language newspapers are nutrious for producing paid news stories, among sensationalism and non-factual content. I would never establish notability based on coverage in Urdu-language newspapers, solely. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know Dutch language sorry. However, I think, the subject is quite notable but we need more references. If it the case of paid stories/articles, that is problem everywhere, it is not only limited to Urdu. The newspapers I cited, mainly, Rising Kashmir, it isn't a Pakistani paper, rather it is an Indian paper based in Kashmir. I would not agree on this point. Still, we need more BLP sources and I'm trying my best to fix that. He is referred to as Urdu poet and journalist, and thus, we shall have to rely on Urdu sources, unless they ain't depreciated. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Draftify: Going through the submissions history, I assume there is a COI issue. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP requires sources to discuss the subject in a neutral way, but when you read the sources attached with this article, it is clear they are promotional in nature and might be paid. The subject has a long history of promoting himself and from time to time nominate his own article for deletion (whenever someone objects his notability) and then withdraws it when it is about to delete. Same happened in previous nomination by his daughter. It fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. The article is a mess and should be deleted per WP:TNT. Störm(talk) 07:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I would expect coverage from better sources about a person who spent more than 10 years in self-promotion than the unreliable sources mentioned above. Tessaracter (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: fwiw, I'm unconvinced this is Ehsan based on what the IP is saying/linguistic patterns, but even if it is I think it's a bit over-the-top to refer to this as "tricks" and tactical decisions. If Ehsan is anything, he's never fully been able to understand the culture of WP despite trying his best to learn the rules, and can feel wronged by the relatively brusque way we all go about our business. No need to make this a bad faith thing. Nole(chat·edits) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me amusing part is the way IPs have been throwing the archived links and sources in AfD's and in the talk pages over the years because they're all very similar in nature. Please see this, this, this, this, and this. And isn't that interesting this IP has voted delete here but the same IP on your talk page opposing the deletion of this page. Anyways, I apologies for going aggressive If it sounds like that. --Saqib (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your imagination amusing me as well, I copied and paste as those were posted - You only removed reliable sources to get the article deleted, edit history proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c00:1604:bb00:459b:2ced:129e:aab0 (talk • contribs)
Sources
DESiegel: These sources and nomination for deletion? - 3 times notable per GNG?
Keep Subject is notable. Good Urdu sources.— Hammad(Talk!) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hammad, there is a issue that these sources don't discuss in detail and are of low-quality and probably paid by the subject. Are you familiar that this article has long history of paid editing and promotional content written by the subject himself? I think you should be detailed in your comment. Störm(talk) 15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: There's page called WP:AADD which says you've to explain and provide solid arguments why this BLP does meet WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
he got war medal from pak army, does he paid for that? - or it is minor than indian film awards? - anyhow delete it as you want, not as policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An award which is itself is not notable enough, does not makes its recipient notable. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: Since you're admin on Urdu Wikipedia, could you please look at the same bio over there as well. The BLP on Urdu WP was heavenly done by IPs. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammad: do you mind expanding on your !vote here? Is your comment about COI in reference to the sourcing? I obviously cannot read Urdu but I'm curious what your thoughts are about some of the above sources that at least facially would seem to be reliable (biggest newspapers in Pakistan, etc). Nole(chat·edits) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nolelover: You need to be aware of the behaviour of this IP - attempting to impersonate an admin. --Saqib (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for administrators: none of the delete votes executes Wikipedia rules since that article 3 time has passed the notability, there are now 31 most reliable sources that are cited in the article, which nominators removed that, claiming the article is not notable. It is a totally illegitimate move of nominators. All delete votes should be considered as just voting without defining rules and reading sources, not as consensus as policies. I do not think, admins are blind, they are here to enforce policies, not personal motives of anyone else. I do not know the subject as you do not know. Since third deletion, fortuna, explained as, this and Mar4d as this, it was edited also as talk page archieve by Lady and Drmies two admins as well. Further more - Overzealous deletion - Myths and facts about deletion as Myth: AfD is a vote. More "keeps" means it'll be kept, and more "deletes" means it'll be deleted.Fact: The numbers of keeps and deletes do not decide the outcome. Entries that are simply votes are dismissed. The comments that reference policies, guidelines, and essays and state why they call for inclusion or exclusion are actually those that will determine the outcome.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked to see this. I've never interacted with MistyGraceWhite, Orientls, Saqib and Störm - my contribution to any article started by Hammad does not pass under meat puppetry, because I had done this at his request on my talk page. Have a look at Special:MobileDiff/955745807, I do not find any article of his where I've contributed besides this. It definitely isn't meat puppetry. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You all just victimized the article that passes GNG and Notability, whereas, I glanced articles which you created most of those entirely fail GNG as this and professor of rules User:Störm similarly enjoying the project to create such kinds of articles trivial mentioned sources that completely fail GNG and come here to preach others the meaning of GNG - the article you blindly voted to delete, has been edited by the most experienced editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the vociferous protests from the disruptive IP above; based on the investigations done by others and a look at what "sources" I can understand (those is English), there is no doubt that this is WP:SELFPROMOTION... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not ask that you registered on 9 May 2020, and you jumped on this article to vote for delete , because of self-promoting, amazing. 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 9 May, a whole day before this AfD was even created, afaics (also, I've been on WP before, but obviously that doesn't require me disclosing my IP, especially not to you). You're convincing no one. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:44, 17 May 2020 (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.
Done [1]— Hammad (Talk!) 00:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
