Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:11, 18 July 2017

Ehsan Sehgal

• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination)

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)

• 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)

However, in doing my little restore I missed a much larger blanking of content from the article subject's daughter, on his behalf, which leaves a rather more bad taste in my mouth. Taken with the rationale advanced in the 2nd Afd, which was something of an angry snit, it seems -- he was caught COI editing, so no one can have 'his' article -- I'm much less inclined to offer any support, to father or daughter in this case. I'm also going to make sure Mona has had the appropriate warnings issued, because if this keeps up she should be blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 14 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)

• AGF is not a carte blanche. This was flat-out vandalism, and I've issued a first-level warning accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I appreciate that, but also note that

  Although Misplaced Pages discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns.

   :::::Landscape repton (talk) 13:56, 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)

• Update: The 'major' works attributed to him are self-publications. This includes 'The Wise Way' and 'Zarb-e-Sukhan', neither of which have ISBN numbers or appear in any library catalogue. This obviously fails WP:AUTHOR. Likewise, work through the general WP:ANYBIO criteria and he fails all three.

I can see that this discussion is not converging on a consensus to delete, at least in terms of the raw vote, and I suspect this is due to the circumstances of how it was listed and by whom. But I'd encourage some attention to the page itself, which seems to be a botched attempt at self-promotion. If we are going to keep it, we need to be able to establish notability in reliable sources independent of the subject. That doesn't exist in the current set of references, so we need to find it if it exists elsewhere and add it in. Landscape repton (talk) 07:47, 15 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)

Actually we have seen that reference before. It updated on 9 April 2017. The source only mention him rather discusses him. We use sources that discusses the subject. You could check other sources so we could verify his notability. We should be clear what is notable should be kept but what is not should be deleted. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to look into the Urdu sources, @Mar4d:. Would you be able to check the Daily Jang reference dated 2012-11-28 (looks like it's available here), and see if it supports the claim that " has been praised by many Urdu writers and poets."? Establishing that would go a long way to establishing notability in reliable sources. Landscape repton (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Landscape repton:. here is the archive copy and it doean't says anywhere " has been praised by many Urdu writers and poets." however it does mention the subject as a poet and a journalist. it was occasion of his book launch ceremony. this also contains some exaggerated praise of the subject, though.. --Saqib (talk) 14:52, 15 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. It also requires that there be "here is no rough consensus", yet, as we are on the third attempt to delete the article, it could be cogently argued that a "rough consensus" has plainly been estabished. In any case, per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion is normally a last resort." 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 :) Incidentally, regarding the question as to whether BLPREQUEST is relevant, this may well be a continuiation of a previous request; but I note that, actually, the filer has made over 75% of all their edits to improving (that is adding material to) the article for the last six years. — 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?Landscape repton (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's evaluation of wp:notability and wp:gng Govindaharihari (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If either of you could provide a link to the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that you are seeing, that would be very useful in helping us source and improve the article.Landscape repton (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: @Govindaharihari: @Saqib: No one is saying that there are no sources. We have spent hours on finding reliable sources. You could help us on this thread or other new threads. Many of keep comments are saying keep only because it is nominated by his daughter. I don't think this could be kept per comments. We don't need keep or delete comments. We need keep comments who demonstrate why article should be kept. Similarily, we need delete comments if they really can show these sources are unreliable and are dependent. Previous nominations haven't done that. 1st one was nominated because of dispute between users and 2nd one was self-nominated like this one to avoid removing unreliable sources. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This article is supported by twenty-eight reference from major publications in the Indian subcontinent, such the Daily Jang. It passes WP:GNG and previous AfDs supported keeping this article. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

This is no argument that it was kept in previous AfDs. I have read the source as did Saqib. The ceremony was launching of his book at Karachi Press Club and there is no mention of that he was praised by many. Greenbörg (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. (I would say this in any event, whether he requested deletion or not).It's still basedon vague praise from news sources many of very uncertain reliability, especially in the creative arts. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• delete sources? have folks who have !voted keep citing the sources actually looked at them? They are almost all tiny posts for this odd "daily times" site like this, that you cannot even put through google translate since they are pictures. This article has been a mess of promotionalism and is not worth maintaining. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:N. I don't know Dutch but English and Urdu are not enough to prove individual notable. 111.68.107.38 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates