- 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.
Reclosing as Keep. While discussion has focused on the quality of sources, there are no actual delete votes other than the nominator. As this is not a vote: The strongest argument against notability is that the sources used to demonstrate notability suggest they are either passing mentions or unreliable, or as Sitush points out, his authorship of his most widely known work is in dispute. RE unreliable - our own article on The Milli Gazette has nothing to suggest it is unreliable, likewise the other print sources have nothing to suggest they would be unuseable even if they are not widely known. While 'passing mentions' may be correct for some of the sources, some of the passing mentions are for his work, which as Anupmehra references, is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. While this by itself may not necessarily qualify as 'notable' - SNGs are by their nature somestimes less restrictive than WP:V and WP:GNG - taken with the other sources available this would appear to satisfy WP:GNG for the Keep editors. RE 'His authorship is in dispute' - this would be something that would need to be addressed in the article. As it is generally accepted they did author the work. Lastly, even had all the (as it appears from discussion) opposing editors formally opposed, this would be a 'no consensus to delete' given the strength of arguments on either side. -edit- to take into account edit conflict with Sitush's last comments: A redirect to the poem would be one option that could be discussed on the article talkpage, however it is clear there is no consensus for a redirect in the below discussion. ( non-admin closure) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bismil Azimabadi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Re-creation of a previously deleted article that hasn't addressed the previous issues. Fails Wikipedia:N, Wikipedia:V, and Wikipedia:RS. The article is sourced almost entirely from [1], which is not a reliable source; I followed up with the other sources and none of the google book links support what the contributor claims they support. The "Interview of Syed Masood Hasan, Grandson of Bismil Azimabad" source doesn't come up on google. The main contributor translated this article, provided all of the "sources", and then proceeded to "pass" it as reviewed on new pages patrol, using sources that don't support what they claim with the exception of the spiritual world source. Fraenir ( talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I came across the article while reviewing new pages feed, found that the article is in Hindi, so went ahead and to article Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna, where I found couple of references that Bismil Azimabadi is poet who penned down this famous revolutionary song, I incorporated some relevant text and references. Then I went ahead for google search, and placed references in article. Poet is definitely of some importance as "Bihar Urdu Academy" has constituted an award in his name and BBC Hindi article too mentions him in detail.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can't just grab stuff from the Hindi WP because our policies and guidelines differ. I've already found some problems with the article as it exists after your edits. Eg:
unreliable source and
not a valid citation. I cannot see all of
this source but it would appear to be a passing mention and thus adds nothing to Azimabadi's notability - it says
Interview with the author on September 17, 1995. The poem was written by a poet in Bihar. He was Bismil Azimabadi.
- even though it might verify that he did write the thing. (I say might because I seem to recall that this fact alone has been disputed and the source is far from being a mainstream one, while the Spiritual World thing that is cited is not reliable). While it is true that Ram Prasad Bismil used the poem in his freedom fighting, that does not make its author notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Finally, based on the current version, the fact that some minor educational insitution has named an award after the guy is utter trivia. At best, and at present, this should be a redirect to the article about the poem. But that depends a lot on getting proper verification that it is not just a load of mirrors and myth perpetuating a dubious claim to authorship. - Sitush ( talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) - The BBC piece is written by Bismil Ajhimabadi Ghjhl, who is most likely a relative of the person in question. The author is defending the claim that the poem was written by Bismil Azimabadi. Not a reliable, independent source. Fraenir ( talk) 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have not copied anything from Hindi WP, I'm note sure from where you have got this idea/info. I don't have any personal interest in subject of the article, I accidently came across it while going through the new page logs and thought I can help improving the article, (now I'm regretting this) I was not even aware that the article has been deleted previously. But you guys seem to have severe POV regarding the subject.--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s
08:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Faizhaider: Did BBC change the author name in the meanwhile? because I see "Afroj Alam Sahil", as author. Anup [Talk] 06:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can't just grab stuff from the Hindi WP because our policies and guidelines differ. I've already found some problems with the article as it exists after your edits. Eg:
unreliable source and
not a valid citation. I cannot see all of
this source but it would appear to be a passing mention and thus adds nothing to Azimabadi's notability - it says
- Keep a poet who has recieved significant coverage both in India and abroad, despite having died long before most easily available sources were published. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- What is the significant coverage in reliable sources? And that discuss him as him. See WP:GNG. - Sitush ( talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Johnpacklambert: was yours a drive-by !vote? Could you please elaborate. - Sitush ( talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with above comment that a good number of quality sources are inaccessible on web. This kind of coverage after 37 years of death by a leading Indian daily and another by reputed International media suggests what, if not notability? (more: [2], [3]). At least subject meets WP:CREATIVE for creating a well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent publications. Anup [Talk] 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've never seen two out of the three news sources you mention in around 10 years of contributing extensively to Indian subjects here. That doesn't bode well for reliability etc. - Sitush ( talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously,
The Milli Gazette? (You are no doubt a prolific contributor to India related subjects, but I don't believe that does provide reasonable ground for assumption that you know everything just about everything related to India.)
Anup
[Talk]
07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. I'm not known for POV pushing. I note that the MG article says
Though it remains separate from mainstream media and is considered an alternative media it gets quoted by mainstream often
- Sitush ( talk) 09:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)- You are quoting
Wikipedia? You know very well, way better than me that is an OR. (I will be editing that article after finishing this comment.) And, accept my apology if you felt the need to clarify your POV stand. I did not mean it.
Anup
[Talk]
10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am quoting the WP article. My opinion and my experience is my opinion and experience. I do wish someone would edit the article with all these supposedly useful sources because right now it is mostly about Ram Prasad Bismil and the poem, for both of which we already have an article. It says nothing of substance about the man and, therefore, has no place on Wikipedia except perhaps as a redirect to the poem. - Sitush ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are quoting
Wikipedia? You know very well, way better than me that is an OR. (I will be editing that article after finishing this comment.) And, accept my apology if you felt the need to clarify your POV stand. I did not mean it.
Anup
[Talk]
10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. I'm not known for POV pushing. I note that the MG article says
- Seriously,
The Milli Gazette? (You are no doubt a prolific contributor to India related subjects, but I don't believe that does provide reasonable ground for assumption that you know everything just about everything related to India.)
Anup
[Talk]
07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no deadline. But no-one here has yet demonstrated that this guy deserves a standalone article and since you've already named some sources perhaps it would be better to use the things to prove that there is significant discussion about him in reliable independent sources etc. Just writing a song, a book or a poem does not notability make. As for your comment about the totality of sources, well, if we adopted that vague approach then we'd hardly ever delete anything provided that we had a least one source that merely mentioned the name. -
Sitush (
talk)
18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- To answer first question, it has already been demonstrated but you appear to choose either not to see it or accept it whatever may be the reason. Second one,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (and this one is a policy, not an essay). A quote from policy page which you may not open to see,
..an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.
- Lastly, you are free to cast your opinion in here. I do not see any convincing argument coming from you that would supposedly led me change my !vote, and I believe we have had enough of a conversation for an afd. Wait for others to come-in and weigh in their opinions.
Anup
[Talk]
01:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has not been demonstrated. The sources are passing mentions of him connected to the poem and/or to his family. Even the article in Milli Gazette is some sort of blog-gy/web forum-y post (look at how it starts, almost like an excerpt from something else) based on information from his son. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- To answer first question, it has already been demonstrated but you appear to choose either not to see it or accept it whatever may be the reason. Second one,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (and this one is a policy, not an essay). A quote from policy page which you may not open to see,
- Keep: Agree with above keeps. Pratyush ( talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna - making my opinion abundantly clear following re-opening of the discussion. There is next to nothing known about the chap and our article concerning the poem already says it. Passing mentions, non-independent sources etc are of no use to us, as I have tried to explain in more detail in my prior posts to this discussion. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Reclosing as Keep. While discussion has focused on the quality of sources, there are no actual delete votes other than the nominator. As this is not a vote: The strongest argument against notability is that the sources used to demonstrate notability suggest they are either passing mentions or unreliable, or as Sitush points out, his authorship of his most widely known work is in dispute. RE unreliable - our own article on The Milli Gazette has nothing to suggest it is unreliable, likewise the other print sources have nothing to suggest they would be unuseable even if they are not widely known. While 'passing mentions' may be correct for some of the sources, some of the passing mentions are for his work, which as Anupmehra references, is enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. While this by itself may not necessarily qualify as 'notable' - SNGs are by their nature somestimes less restrictive than WP:V and WP:GNG - taken with the other sources available this would appear to satisfy WP:GNG for the Keep editors. RE 'His authorship is in dispute' - this would be something that would need to be addressed in the article. As it is generally accepted they did author the work. Lastly, even had all the (as it appears from discussion) opposing editors formally opposed, this would be a 'no consensus to delete' given the strength of arguments on either side. -edit- to take into account edit conflict with Sitush's last comments: A redirect to the poem would be one option that could be discussed on the article talkpage, however it is clear there is no consensus for a redirect in the below discussion. ( non-admin closure) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bismil Azimabadi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Re-creation of a previously deleted article that hasn't addressed the previous issues. Fails Wikipedia:N, Wikipedia:V, and Wikipedia:RS. The article is sourced almost entirely from [1], which is not a reliable source; I followed up with the other sources and none of the google book links support what the contributor claims they support. The "Interview of Syed Masood Hasan, Grandson of Bismil Azimabad" source doesn't come up on google. The main contributor translated this article, provided all of the "sources", and then proceeded to "pass" it as reviewed on new pages patrol, using sources that don't support what they claim with the exception of the spiritual world source. Fraenir ( talk) 07:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I came across the article while reviewing new pages feed, found that the article is in Hindi, so went ahead and to article Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna, where I found couple of references that Bismil Azimabadi is poet who penned down this famous revolutionary song, I incorporated some relevant text and references. Then I went ahead for google search, and placed references in article. Poet is definitely of some importance as "Bihar Urdu Academy" has constituted an award in his name and BBC Hindi article too mentions him in detail.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can't just grab stuff from the Hindi WP because our policies and guidelines differ. I've already found some problems with the article as it exists after your edits. Eg:
unreliable source and
not a valid citation. I cannot see all of
this source but it would appear to be a passing mention and thus adds nothing to Azimabadi's notability - it says
Interview with the author on September 17, 1995. The poem was written by a poet in Bihar. He was Bismil Azimabadi.
- even though it might verify that he did write the thing. (I say might because I seem to recall that this fact alone has been disputed and the source is far from being a mainstream one, while the Spiritual World thing that is cited is not reliable). While it is true that Ram Prasad Bismil used the poem in his freedom fighting, that does not make its author notable - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Finally, based on the current version, the fact that some minor educational insitution has named an award after the guy is utter trivia. At best, and at present, this should be a redirect to the article about the poem. But that depends a lot on getting proper verification that it is not just a load of mirrors and myth perpetuating a dubious claim to authorship. - Sitush ( talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC) - The BBC piece is written by Bismil Ajhimabadi Ghjhl, who is most likely a relative of the person in question. The author is defending the claim that the poem was written by Bismil Azimabadi. Not a reliable, independent source. Fraenir ( talk) 08:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have not copied anything from Hindi WP, I'm note sure from where you have got this idea/info. I don't have any personal interest in subject of the article, I accidently came across it while going through the new page logs and thought I can help improving the article, (now I'm regretting this) I was not even aware that the article has been deleted previously. But you guys seem to have severe POV regarding the subject.--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s
08:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Faizhaider: Did BBC change the author name in the meanwhile? because I see "Afroj Alam Sahil", as author. Anup [Talk] 06:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can't just grab stuff from the Hindi WP because our policies and guidelines differ. I've already found some problems with the article as it exists after your edits. Eg:
unreliable source and
not a valid citation. I cannot see all of
this source but it would appear to be a passing mention and thus adds nothing to Azimabadi's notability - it says
- Keep a poet who has recieved significant coverage both in India and abroad, despite having died long before most easily available sources were published. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- What is the significant coverage in reliable sources? And that discuss him as him. See WP:GNG. - Sitush ( talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- @ Johnpacklambert: was yours a drive-by !vote? Could you please elaborate. - Sitush ( talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with above comment that a good number of quality sources are inaccessible on web. This kind of coverage after 37 years of death by a leading Indian daily and another by reputed International media suggests what, if not notability? (more: [2], [3]). At least subject meets WP:CREATIVE for creating a well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent publications. Anup [Talk] 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've never seen two out of the three news sources you mention in around 10 years of contributing extensively to Indian subjects here. That doesn't bode well for reliability etc. - Sitush ( talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously,
The Milli Gazette? (You are no doubt a prolific contributor to India related subjects, but I don't believe that does provide reasonable ground for assumption that you know everything just about everything related to India.)
Anup
[Talk]
07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. I'm not known for POV pushing. I note that the MG article says
Though it remains separate from mainstream media and is considered an alternative media it gets quoted by mainstream often
- Sitush ( talk) 09:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)- You are quoting
Wikipedia? You know very well, way better than me that is an OR. (I will be editing that article after finishing this comment.) And, accept my apology if you felt the need to clarify your POV stand. I did not mean it.
Anup
[Talk]
10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am quoting the WP article. My opinion and my experience is my opinion and experience. I do wish someone would edit the article with all these supposedly useful sources because right now it is mostly about Ram Prasad Bismil and the poem, for both of which we already have an article. It says nothing of substance about the man and, therefore, has no place on Wikipedia except perhaps as a redirect to the poem. - Sitush ( talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- You are quoting
Wikipedia? You know very well, way better than me that is an OR. (I will be editing that article after finishing this comment.) And, accept my apology if you felt the need to clarify your POV stand. I did not mean it.
Anup
[Talk]
10:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously. I'm not known for POV pushing. I note that the MG article says
- Seriously,
The Milli Gazette? (You are no doubt a prolific contributor to India related subjects, but I don't believe that does provide reasonable ground for assumption that you know everything just about everything related to India.)
Anup
[Talk]
07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no deadline. But no-one here has yet demonstrated that this guy deserves a standalone article and since you've already named some sources perhaps it would be better to use the things to prove that there is significant discussion about him in reliable independent sources etc. Just writing a song, a book or a poem does not notability make. As for your comment about the totality of sources, well, if we adopted that vague approach then we'd hardly ever delete anything provided that we had a least one source that merely mentioned the name. -
Sitush (
talk)
18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- To answer first question, it has already been demonstrated but you appear to choose either not to see it or accept it whatever may be the reason. Second one,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (and this one is a policy, not an essay). A quote from policy page which you may not open to see,
..an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet.
- Lastly, you are free to cast your opinion in here. I do not see any convincing argument coming from you that would supposedly led me change my !vote, and I believe we have had enough of a conversation for an afd. Wait for others to come-in and weigh in their opinions.
Anup
[Talk]
01:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- It has not been demonstrated. The sources are passing mentions of him connected to the poem and/or to his family. Even the article in Milli Gazette is some sort of blog-gy/web forum-y post (look at how it starts, almost like an excerpt from something else) based on information from his son. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- To answer first question, it has already been demonstrated but you appear to choose either not to see it or accept it whatever may be the reason. Second one,
Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (and this one is a policy, not an essay). A quote from policy page which you may not open to see,
- Keep: Agree with above keeps. Pratyush ( talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna - making my opinion abundantly clear following re-opening of the discussion. There is next to nothing known about the chap and our article concerning the poem already says it. Passing mentions, non-independent sources etc are of no use to us, as I have tried to explain in more detail in my prior posts to this discussion. - Sitush ( talk) 09:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)