Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 23 October 2011

Novels Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct name of the book

Is the name of the book pir-e-kamil. Or is it pir-e-kamil pbuh? 83.64.194.163 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

English is Pir-e-Kamil pbuh while Urdu title is Pir-e-Kamil saww according to the front covers... and title with ISBN is not reliable because there are many other mistakes on the official ferozsons website... Farjad0322 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

unable to see either pbuh or saww on the image of the front cover that has been supplied for the page83.64.194.163 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Look closely... pbuh is written... Farjad0322 20:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

nope just cloud above the title. Can you source a reference for what you claim the book is called, as so far all I can see is that you are claiming that the cited source is wrong and you are right. 83.64.194.163 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Look closely, the front cover has "pbuh" written on the upper right corner of the "Pir-e-Kamil"... Like This: Pir-e-Kamil: The Perfect Mentor... Inside the book, there is another page stating that the same title is present... Further inside the book, the title with ISBN is written Pir-e-Kamil The Perfect Mentor (but this title will invalidate the Urdu version of the book)... ISBN is meant for books in general, but this is not only a book, it is a novel (a story), hence the name should follow a proper essence as highlighted in the book... If we are to strictly follow that the title should be that along the ISBN number, and not the front cover... then we should also remove Peer-e-Kamil and leave only Pir-e-Kamil... or at least we should mention in the other title with "pbuh" notion in brackets, like this: Pir-e-Kamil (or Pir-e-Kamil; also known as Peer-e-Kamil) (Template:Lang-ur), meaning The Perfect Mentor... Farjad0322 17:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, the ferozsons website is wrong, the authors website is wrong, the isbn number links to the wrong book. And of course you are right. 83.64.194.163 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are over reacting. I said the author's book was right, not wrong. And also the idea that I gave is the best because it also goes with the name of ISBN and the book. Like this Pir-e-Kamil (or Pir-e-Kamil; also known as Peer-e-Kamil) (Template:Lang-ur), meaning The Perfect Mentor Farjad0322 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

over reacting, never. The if the cited sources are wrong, change them to fit your version of the fact. Can't let the facts stop editors changing what they want 83.64.194.163 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your English has many mistakes that it is becoming difficult to comprehend what you are trying to say. And there are no cited sources. Farjad0322 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

so the isbn Is not a cited source, the web site of the publisher is not a cited source. An on the writers wikki entry their is her web page as a cited source. Oh and btw on the writers wikki page the book is listed without the pbuh 83.64.194.163 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

These are not exactly what we call citations on wikipedia, these are called external links. And as you can see, the problem has already been fixed. The name that you wanted is there, whereas the local nicknames or any other cultural variations follow the main name in brackets. Farjad0322 21:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A friend told me once "never have an argument with an idiot, since they drag you down to their level and beat you with it". Holding with that comment I will stop my protestations about including false fact on this page 83.64.194.163 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, we did what you wanted never even reverted your edits... But it seems like you can't contribute to wikipedia with an uncooperative attitude like this... Farjad0322 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference lists states that the book is called "Peer-e-Kamil by Umaira Ahmed (Author) 4.23 of 5 stars 4.23 · rating details · 108 ratings · 31 reviews It is a marvellous novel about a person who is extra ordinary intelligent but does not know the meaning and purpose of life..... The charm of the world does not apeals to him..... But God knows how to make him know this. " Where is the PBUH ?78.150.79.236 (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• First you have to know that sometime translation from Urdu to English cause different spellings,and it is very common in urdu speaking countries.You are contributing wikipedia,you should have knowledge and common sense to understand the things.I have searched the reality of the said book,and it is obvious before me that Pir-e-Kamil or Peer-e-Kamil pbuh is very very correct according to original Urdu book title's version,there are many many references,which cite the both spellings and pbuh in English and S.A.W in Urdu/Arabi.It seem to me that probably

you have some your personal motives?,that's why you are busy with different IP Nos. from long time to vandal and reverting reality.I ask you ,please stop your vandal according to wikipedia policies and guidelines.Here are some websites from google search,in which you can find reality,and I hope now you will use your common sense.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.nl/#q=peer-e-kamil&hl=nl&pwst=1&rlz=1W1ADRA_enNL449&prmd=imvnsb&ei=9reKTurjM8PsOYajpc8F&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2d7e4d2c15d2fba0&biw=1366&bih=485

• Now, and correct me if I'm wrong, its seems to me that the "pbuh" could be something purposely left out by websites, as it is "only" an honorific, just like "The Perfect Mentor" is "only" a subtitle. It seems rather obvious from the image and other sites that "pbuh" is part of the official title, and since we only have the "pbuh" in one small parenthetical, I'm not sure why the IP is still complaining. However, if he continues, I'm going to request semi-protection on this page and he will not be able to edit without an account. Nolelover 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I thought that in order to put facts in this page they need to be verifiable. I could be wrong and that just by saying that something is called that, that will make it fact. If you are going to change the name of the book then is it to much of a hardship to prove it. The reference cited does not prove the statment made. 78.150.79.236 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much more verifying you need then an actual image of the English version of the book with the "pbuh" clearly visible. That said, the "pbuh" doesn't appear to be part of the main title, so its not in the article's title. Anything else? Nolelover 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have adde one more reference and cited to title name of book,and change the spelling according to website,what he wish to see.Now it should not be a problem or any complicated matter.I hope so,and he understands to follow wiki policies.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

The page still lacks any indication of notability per WP:BK. Much of the discussion was on blogs and other user-generated content sources, which are self-published and therefore not reliable. There are no reviews, no considerable attention, I don't believe it's been made into a movie, I've seen no mention of awards, or its involvement in university courses and the like. I may try looking for more information, but if I can't find it, I will nominate it for deletion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

There is no need to add citations to the contents of the book; the book itself acts as the source.

Per WP:SURNAME, after the lead or first mention, any non-characters discussed in the page (i.e. Umaira Ahmad, the author) should be referred to by surname, not by first name. In other words, please don't change this edit without a good reason.

The page still lacks evidence of notability. If it's so popular, it should be possible to provide favourable reviews, presence on a best-sellers list, or something else indicating it has received attention, praise or is otherwise worth including. Personal views or blogs are inadequate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally that the first name is included in the page. I'm just saying it's wrong per WP:SURNAME. So I've removed it yet again. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion from talk pages regarding Pir-e-Kamil

Non-English sources

(I Paste all discussions regarding Pir-e-Kamil here,relevant to this page)

Note that you are allowed to add non-English sources to articles (see WP:NOENG). I have searched for sources regarding Ahmad and Pir-e-Kamil using google, google books and google scholar and can't find anything, but her name has a variety of spellings and I'm guessing most of the work is in Urdu. If you are aware of Urdu or other non-English sources (either on-line or in paper) they can be used to improve the referencing and expand both pages. The best thing you can do to help avoid the issues I am bringing up on these pages is to find sources and integrate them neutrally. I don't want to delete a genuinely notable page, but I am unwilling to simply accept an author or book is notable without evidence. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind constructive step,I appreciate it.I know Urdu and four other languages of that subject of area,as I am very familair to that.I will try to find reliable sources.One thing I will again repeat here that writer shoud be called Umaira Ahmad with full name or Umaira.Because as WP:SURNAME states that famous name should be written.Beyond policies,for I exemplify,in that part of world,things are very different than western counties,most of public does not use that surname with their name,they use name second name or third name, small groups use mostly surname/family name. And Ahmad is Umaira's second name,I think so.When I realy call her name Ahmad the people will not understand,about whom I am talking,and they will consider me knowing nothing.And it will be my more obivous stupidity even if I pretend to show my mastery of WP:policies and guidelines.She is famous and known in Pakistan and India as Umaira Ahmad,but absolute not Ahmad.And it will be not suitable for the standards of Misplaced Pages.I assume good faith I hope we both are doing best for wikipedia.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

All of my edits and talk page comments are constructive, you just don't like some of them. However, to edit wikipedia, you must learn and accept the policies and guidelines - one of which is that you have to demonstrate that something is notable, you can't just say it is.

Referring to people by full name is common in North America as well; Tom Cruise is called "Tom Cruise" nearly everywhere, but in news articles only the second name is used after the introduction. So either Umaira or Ahmad should be used throughout, but not both. The style used elsewhere doesn't matter, on wikipedia we use a single name as that is the policy. If you look at the pages for Qamar Zaman Kaira, Yousaf Raza Gillani, or probably any other individual, it's a single name. It doesn't matter how she is known in Pakistan, her article is bound by our policies. So we need to figure out what her surname is and stick with that. I would suggest Ahmad. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• - Well,I don,t think your edits are here constructive. Though you are mentioning policies and guidelines of wikipedia,but I consider it that they are in wrong direction,which are misunderstood to the topic.What you have mentioned examples of the names,Qamar Zaman Kaira and Yousaf Raza Gillani,here it is clear to me that Kaira and Gillani are the family names,and famous and known to the public according to Pakistani customs.

I am giving you examples too,as exact WP:SURNAME policy,take a look at,

1. Ahmad Faraz,here has been used full name rather than Ahmad or Faraz,though Faraz is also right.
2. Genernal Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq,has been used Zia,not Haq,nor genernal,because he was famous Zia era.
3. Ishtiaq Ahmad is also same used,not Ahmad.

There are hundreds of article which support the exact wiki policy.These are my concerns that your suggestions look like imposing personal ideas and choices.Now I in this regard,don't want to waste my time to discuss with you further.I will ask WP:Consensus rather than removing,adding content.The editors who assist me,I trust their fairness, neutrality and experience.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out some page that needed correcting, I have corrected all three , , , to comply with WP:SURNAME. In the future, please feel free to correct them yourself. Because this is a wiki, individual pages can rarely be used as examples of what is acceptable as anyone could have edited them. The exception would be featured articles, and even then must be used judiciously. If an article is not in compliance with the policy, please change the article accordingly. None of this is my opinion, I make a point of continuously citing policy to justify my edits. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please assist me

Hi,LadyofShalott,I need your help regarding to Pir-e-Kamil,please take a look at view history and discussion page.I added some references which are removed by User:WLU and he tagged notability and attend to ask proposed deletion.Umaira Ahmad is a notable writer and her books have got awards,it means her work is notable and as I remember since 2010 for notability at least one reference is needed.I don't think there is even need of notability tag?.Please assist me in this regard.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've looked in the databases available to me that I generally use to help establish notability of a literary work... and found nothing. I'm also not finding anything useful in Google Books. Can you find some more reliable sources about the book? Are there - maybe in Urdu - more published reviews of it? LadyofShalott 13:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOENG non-English sources would be acceptable if they exist; in this circumstance I would want to be very careful about neutrality and promotion. I'm surprised there are no noteworthy reviews given the buzz seems to be it's a good book. Ahmad's own page is pretty sparse on sources and indications of merit as well, meaning I don't think the book would pass WP:BK on the basis of criteria 5. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Lady,I have a bit problem with my laptop,now I am using my very old computer,it does not work fast.I am trying to search the reliable sources.I assume good faith and I am careful about neutrallity and promotion too.I follow to improve the articles not only tagging.

Lady,I ask you this question the Umaira Ahmad is known with full name and Ahmad is not a surname,I have seen videos on youtube,some tv,channels talking programms,they called her with full name or only Umaira,and she is more known Umaira than Ahmad.In this regard what I understand as WP:SURNAME is different than what User:WLU understanding.I don't know here can be used WP:common sense.He seems to persist reverting all my edits.please fairly check it.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time on a deletion discussion so don't worry about a nomination in the next week or so. However, eventually sources must be provided otherwise it is completely reasonable to nominate the page for deletion (and please avoid personal comments - even if I was doing this out of pure spite, which I'm not, anyone who wants to edit wikipedia must obey the policies, guidelines and consensus).

Regards SURNAME, most famous people are referred to by full names (Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Jimmy Carter, Omar Sharif) during the introductory parts of interviews and the like, switching to surnames afterwards. The page should use a surname, whether it's Umaira or Ahmad. I am aware that some cultures place the surname first followed by the family name, I'm not sure if Urdu-speaking Pakistani people are one such group. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That has never been my impression of Urdu naming customs, but I am most definitely not an expert. LadyofShalott 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

See the unsourced Pakistani names article, but that doesn't mean SURNAME gets ignored. I have suggested using Ahmad. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Answer is on my talk page.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion?.

Hi,Muhandes,I see you most experienced editor of wiki policies in exact concept.Please take a look at my talk page,and User:LadyofShalott talk page,regarding to book Pir-e-Kamil and give your bold and fair opinion as I see always in your editings.And assist me sothat I can learn more about the exact meaning of the polices in right and proper concept.God bless you.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the name, since I don't see any evidence that Ahmad is a patronymic I believe per WP:SURNAME she should be called by her family name, Ahmad. Even when a person is always called in the media by his given name or full name (especially as Ahmad sounds like a masculine name), it is encyclopedic to use the surname. I know patronymics are very common in India, but much less so in Pakistan, so evidence should be brought when one is used. As for notability, wasn't the book reviewed in Urdu newspapers? Given its prevalence I'm sure you'll be able to find some reviews. Anyway, even if it did go to deletion discussion I think the notability of the author itself and it being her most popular work will make it very hard to delete. Was there any other matter you wanted my opinion about other than the name and notability? --Muhandes (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reply,yes you know the customs of that side of the world,in English language reference she is written everywhere Umaira Ahmad,which is her given name,Ahmad is not a family name.I have seen on youtube a some tv talk progammes,she is called Umaira Ahmad,please take a look at reference given in the article,it is evidence,no any place has been used Ahmad. Can any one prove Ahmad is a surname,there should be reference too,not making the two part of the name considering self as a family name,and given name.I am still not satisfied.Cheers.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you asked for my unbiased opinion, and I gave you my unbiased opinion. How she is named on TV or the news is irrelevant. As common practice in Pakistan is to use surnames, if you want to use anything else, the burden of proof that her last name is a patronymic is on you. Moreover, this discussion belongs on her own article, not on the book's. As I am not really involved in this dispute, I'll stay out of it. Best regards and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Need opinion

Hi,Brianhe,how are you,I don't see you active?.I need your opinion regarding article Pir-e-Kamil,please take a look at my talk page and talk page of User:LadyofShalott,and give your review with exact concept of the wiki polices and guidelines.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this about a disagreement with WLU (talk · contribs) concerning surnames? Has his last edit on your user talk page (17:36, 22 October) put this to rest or are you still dissatisfied? -- Brianhe (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes I am dissatisfied because according to WP:SURNAME,this phrase,support my argue as it,

"However, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic (like some Russians and most Icelanders) then the proper form of reference is usually the given name. For example:

The Icelandic prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, should not be referred to as Sigurðardóttir but as Jóhanna; "Jóhanna was elected to the Althing in 1978.":

Umaira Ahmad is given name,Ahmad is not a family name and she is famous and known Umaira Ahmad.

User:WLU I don't know which policy imposing?.Do you know?.Please put note according to exact concept of WP:SURNAME what it states.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)'

May you have time.

Hi,Jeepday,long ago,again your help is needed.Please take a look at article Pir-e-Kamil and my talk page and talk page of User:LadyofShalott and give your fair and bold opinion according to exact concept of the wiki polices and guidelines.I hope you will spare a bit time to review it.Thanks a lot.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The book does not appear to meet WP:BK, given the lack of available sources, the only chance it has is #5 "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.". As Umaira Ahmad says "She is best known for authoring the book Pir-e-Kamil ". So as Pir-e-Kamil is not notable by it's self and the authors most notable book is a non-notable book, it fails #5. I am considering it a given that significant reference do not exist in other languages as there have been several conversation on the topic. Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My comments for especialized editors review

• Article Pir-e-Kamil was edited as,

(cur | prev) 19:30, 20 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,217 bytes) (don't think this is supposed to be here) (undo) ,

and was reverted by User:Nolelover as,

(cur | prev) 19:41, 20 October 2011‎ Nolelover (talk | contribs)‎ (6,222 bytes) (Undid revision 456563047 by WLU (talk) see talk page. apparently it is) (undo) .

The first edit,I considered as a "proposed editing", without explaining,when contents obviously shows the references,there was not any legitimation nor accurated to remove the content or part of content.When you are experienced,and aware of the policies and guidelines of the wikipedia,you will not be the cause of this kind of blunder.But it's happened.It was in my opinion a kind of WP:VANDALISM and bad faith editing,so I left a message to the editor's talk page,in the reaction,I saw deletion tag on the article Pir-e-Kamil.

(cur | prev) 00:14, 21 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,280 bytes) (goodreads is user generated content, not reliable; no indication of notability) (undo) .

In reply I search google,and added some references and cited,

(cur | prev) 06:50, 21 October 2011‎ Ehsan Sehgal (talk | contribs)‎ (6,893 bytes) (New reference s added and cited for notability,there are many,I am busy,tag removed,I consider it is based on bad faith) (undo) ,

which were removed,

(cur | prev) 10:58, 21 October 2011‎ WLU (talk | contribs)‎ (6,446 bytes) (removed selfpublished sources (blogs and other user-generated content are not reliable sources) and embedded the one link with any meaning to it) (undo) .

And then has been changed the author name Umaira Ahmad to Ahmad, I corrected,

(cur | prev) 15:25, 21 October 2011‎ Ehsan Sehgal (talk | contribs)‎ (6,599 bytes) (Please don't take personal,in reference no anywhere,she is called Ahmad,Umaira Ahmad sound good to ear,and how do you know Ahmad is her family name.?.I am done Umaira Ahmad,instead.) (undo) .

In this regard discussion see above.

WP:SURNAME,policy states,

"However, where a person does not have a surname but a patronymic (like some Russians and most Icelanders) then the proper form of reference is usually the given name. For example:

The Icelandic prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, should not be referred to as Sigurðardóttir but as Jóhanna; "Jóhanna was elected to the Althing in 1978.": The person may be referred to by given name in the case of royalty, or as "Prince John", "Princess Jane", "The Duke," "The Earl," "The Duchess," "The Countess," etc. For other subjects, it is preferable to refer to the person by surname, not given name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant.

A member of the nobility may be referred to by title if that form of address would have been the customary way to refer to him or her; for example Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester may become "the Earl of Leicester" or just "Leicester" in subsequent mentions. Be careful not to give someone a title too soon; for example, one should use "Robert Dudley" or "Dudley" when describing events prior to his elevation to the peerage in 1564.

People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Madonna, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. For people well-known by one-word names, nicknames or pseudonyms, but who often also use their legal names professionally (e.g. musician/actors Beyoncé Knowles, André Benjamin, Jennifer Lopez; doctor/broadcaster Dr. Drew Pinsky), use the legal surname.

For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth".

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH ,Maiden names, state

"A woman should be referred to by her most common name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname."

See Patronymic, Asia,Indian.

As I know Umaira is known with here given name,and is as a pseudonym too.

Here I would like to say that this article is about a book not about her biograpghy,where may be applied WP:SURNAME.

Using here"Ahmad" creating confusion,here should be quoted full name Umaira Ahmad,or Umaira,instead of Ahmad.

Regarding to WP:SURNAME,what will someone say, examples,

1. Faiz Ahmad Faiz,Faiz is his given name and pseudonym,nobody will claim Ahmad is surname,or will use.

2.Zia-ul-Haq,in whole article,his given name is used,but not last name" Haq" according to WP:surname,because it does not apply here , Zia name is know to everywhere,though it is given name.If we follow in wrong direction and concept of theWP:surname and other policies,it will be blunder to change names from hundreds of thousand articles with not accurate names.There should be wide scale discussion about it.I ask especialized editors to take part in this discussion,and give their opinion and review.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class novel articles
• Low-importance novel articles
• WikiProject Novels articles
• Stub-Class Pakistan articles
• Low-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles