| Revision as of 12:28, 14 July 2017 editSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,462 edits !v← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:38, 14 July 2017 edit undoLandscape repton (talk | contribs)420 edits →Ehsan SehgalNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| *'''Keep''' I will stick with the consensus from the previous two AfDs, which is that the subject is deemed notable to a sufficient standard as required by ]. piece on Dawn mentions him amongst Pakistan's notable English language poets, which is interesting. That being said, I need to cross-check and look further into the Urdu sources available. ''']''' (]) 12:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' I will stick with the consensus from the previous two AfDs, which is that the subject is deemed notable to a sufficient standard as required by ]. piece on Dawn mentions him amongst Pakistan's notable English language poets, which is interesting. That being said, I need to cross-check and look further into the Urdu sources available. ''']''' (]) 12:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per ]; ] refers explicitly to "'''Poorly sourced''' biographical articles" (my emph.), which this most certainly is not, and therefore does not apply. Other delete !votes fail to present sound policy-based arguments: Greenborg's, for example, is an alphabet soup with no focussed explanation for the soup presented, BLPREQUESTetc does not apply, and other suggestions ('refs are a mess', for example) are pure ]. ] presumably also applies :) — ]] 12:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per ]; ] refers explicitly to "'''Poorly sourced''' biographical articles" (my emph.), which this most certainly is not, and therefore does not apply. Other delete !votes fail to present sound policy-based arguments: Greenborg's, for example, is an alphabet soup with no focussed explanation for the soup presented, BLPREQUESTetc does not apply, and other suggestions ('refs are a mess', for example) are pure ]. ] presumably also applies :) — ]] 12:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::Quantity of references does not equate to quality of sources. This article ''is'' poorly sourced, even though a number of sources have been used and misused. There are two issues now: 1) In the mess of references is there enough that establishes notability in reliable sources? (I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate that there is.) 2) Are these of sufficient quality and notability to override the ]? | |||
Revision as of 12:38, 14 July 2017
Ehsan Sehgal
AfDs for this article:- Ehsan Sehgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no sources, not notable Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
deleteMoona Sehgal (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)- 1) Your nomination statement is considered your !vote so please do not reiterate it with another bolded one, per WP:AFDFORMAT. 2) I see from your edit history that you are the declared daughter of the article subject, who previously attempted to have his article deleted at the 2nd AFD, without success -- though I myself tend to honour such requests in the spirit of WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST, others may take a more narrow view. 3) I see that you also blanked relevant content from the article as part of your efforts to have it removed. Your rationale was that these were also at Afd. But removing relevant content from an article you are trying to have deleted is also against policy, so I've restored that, at least for the time being. Editors should note that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Wise Way is the current Afd for two of his works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural snow keep - the nominator made a recent unexplained mass deletion of ref content, then claims the article is unsourced. The AfD rationale is blatantly bogus. Dl2000 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- The onus is on those restoring the content (in this case yourself) to demonstrate the notability of this individual and testify to the quality of the sources. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Given the deleting/this request appear to have been done by a family member on the subject's behalf, and the messy and sometimes misleading nature of the previous reference section, can you provide sources that demonstrate the subjects notability?Landscape repton (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete i hope this can be safely deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because it is poorly sourced biography of relatively non-public figure. --Saqib (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Several of the sources in the article are "big names" in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, America, and Pakistan like AD's Haagsche Courant, and Family Magazine, and he has been mentioned in various articles over a long period of time. Misplaced Pages has plenty of articles about LIVING authors of books 📚 with not only no picture 📷, but less sources, and yeah WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable here because this article fully falls within this standard and not all "non-public" people are automatically "non-notables", many authors only write and we have articles on them only based on commentary on their work 🏢. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please, show his real-world notability other than saying WP:ILIKEIT. For your information, Family Magazine is a weekly women's magazine so how it could prove the subject's notability. Whereas your other gsource Haasche Courant which is certainly credible but It contains subject's column/opinion which can't be used as independent source. His work were never notable except they have articles on English Misplaced Pages and after their deletion I can't see he passes WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Several of the sources in the article are "big names" in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, America, and Pakistan like AD's Haagsche Courant, and Family Magazine, and he has been mentioned in various articles over a long period of time. Misplaced Pages has plenty of articles about LIVING authors of books 📚 with not only no picture 📷, but less sources, and yeah WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable here because this article fully falls within this standard and not all "non-public" people are automatically "non-notables", many authors only write and we have articles on them only based on commentary on their work 🏢. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes and as I said above I typically go with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in marginal cases. The article subject failed to get this deleted at the 2nd AFD and this can be considered an extension of a subject request via his daughter. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —Talk to my owner:Online 00:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, I read 28 references, many are from different languages such as English, Hindustani (specifically Urdu), and in Dutch, as someone who lives in the Hague the Haagsche Courant is actually a pretty big newspaper 📰 to appear in, so I am quite baffled that this article even gets nominated on a supposed lack of notability, further whether or not the article was created with ill-intend by someone closely related to the subject doesn't mean that the person becomes less notable, aren't we all here to edit the things we're passionate about? --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- A quick comment, this article has been nominated for deletion multiple times, and the content of it was blanked prior to it being restored, this is nothing short of WP:VANDALISM and ill intent, the nominator should be blocked indefinitely and this article speedy kept. --58.187.168.206 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith, given that that removal seems to have been made by a relative of the subject, that a stub was left behind, and the persistent poor state of the citations, this wasn't vandalism. See WP:BLPEDIT. Also note that the onus of responsibility and burden of proof here falls on those restoring the deleted content/sources, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.
- There are problems on that article with citations being misused or exaggerated, perhaps you could verify the attributions from Dutch sources over at the talk page?Landscape repton (talk) 10:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. The references are an absolute mess. Upon checking them, some have definitely been misleadingly cited or exaggerated, there are many deadlinks, and we're depending for notability on a clutch of articles from the late 90s/early 00s that nobody seems to be able to verify. There is no verifiable source that attests to notability. These problems have persisted without improvement since they were raised AfD six years ago, and there seems no prospect of that situation improving in the future. At best, this article should be reduced back down to a stub, and built up again with better referencing.Landscape repton (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Whenever somone try to fix the issues page had they start emptying the content from different identities or IPs using internet censorship circumvention tool. I don't think it will work again. They are doing what they had done in 2012. This way they think somone will save article again. Because of dubious references per WP:RS, fail to verify per WP:V he fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO or whatever article says he has done. Greenbörg (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I will stick with the consensus from the previous two AfDs, which is that the subject is deemed notable to a sufficient standard as required by WP:GNG. This piece on Dawn mentions him amongst Pakistan's notable English language poets, which is interesting. That being said, I need to cross-check and look further into the Urdu sources available. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO; WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE refers explicitly to "Poorly sourced biographical articles" (my emph.), which this most certainly is not, and therefore does not apply. Other delete !votes fail to present sound policy-based arguments: Greenborg's, for example, is an alphabet soup with no focussed explanation for the soup presented, BLPREQUESTetc does not apply, and other suggestions ('refs are a mess', for example) are pure WP:ATA. WP:IDLI presumably also applies :) — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Quantity of references does not equate to quality of sources. This article is poorly sourced, even though a number of sources have been used and misused. There are two issues now: 1) In the mess of references is there enough that establishes notability in reliable sources? (I'm yet to see anyone demonstrate that there is.) 2) Are these of sufficient quality and notability to override the delete request?