- 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. If we go purely by the numbers, this would be no-consensus. However the "Keep" votes are just bare assertions that this person is notable, while the "Delete" ones actually go into policy. I note the comment there that there may be sources in Urdu, but we can't keep a BLP around on the off chance there might be unlocatable sources. If such sources are discovered the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Syed Wasi Shah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per the rule, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not establish the notability. None of the cited sources are reliable. The creator of the article removed the proposed deletion tag without telling the reasons that why he is removing the tag. Justice007 ( talk) 10:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is this the same person as http://viaf.org/viaf/56055456/ ? Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, if go into details, there are also various similar names! Justice007 ( talk) 09:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Not seeing coverage of this person in RS. It would be nice if the editor removing the PROD had offered an explanation for doing so. NickCT ( talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the biography is notable enough. Though this poet is in covered by any reliable references yet he has done alot of work in his field. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - While "Syed" sometimes seems to be used as a personal name in Pakistan, it also gets used as an honorific, and in this case one definitely gets better results by omitting it - (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The GNews results I get seem to be passing mentions but strongly suggest a level of recognition within Pakistan that implies definite Wikipedia notability - the trouble is that, as the subject writes in Urdu, most of the reliable sources are almost certainly also in Urdu. Unless an Urdu-speaker can get hold of these, though, or someone can come up with at least one English-language reliable source more substantial than the ones I have seen, this may be an unavoidable case of WP:BIAS - though I would urge leaving this AfD open for at least another week to try to avoid this. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Umais Bin Sajjad, how do you support the subject that has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. I have checked English and Urdu sources before nominating for deletion, I did not find. If anyone can?. Justice007 ( talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:BASIC, if he was popular, he would be covered in many (I'm talking 50-100+) reliable publications. Esquivalience t 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. If we go purely by the numbers, this would be no-consensus. However the "Keep" votes are just bare assertions that this person is notable, while the "Delete" ones actually go into policy. I note the comment there that there may be sources in Urdu, but we can't keep a BLP around on the off chance there might be unlocatable sources. If such sources are discovered the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Syed Wasi Shah ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per the rule, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not establish the notability. None of the cited sources are reliable. The creator of the article removed the proposed deletion tag without telling the reasons that why he is removing the tag. Justice007 ( talk) 10:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is this the same person as http://viaf.org/viaf/56055456/ ? Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, if go into details, there are also various similar names! Justice007 ( talk) 09:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Not seeing coverage of this person in RS. It would be nice if the editor removing the PROD had offered an explanation for doing so. NickCT ( talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the biography is notable enough. Though this poet is in covered by any reliable references yet he has done alot of work in his field. Umais Bin Sajjad ( talk) 08:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - While "Syed" sometimes seems to be used as a personal name in Pakistan, it also gets used as an honorific, and in this case one definitely gets better results by omitting it - (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The GNews results I get seem to be passing mentions but strongly suggest a level of recognition within Pakistan that implies definite Wikipedia notability - the trouble is that, as the subject writes in Urdu, most of the reliable sources are almost certainly also in Urdu. Unless an Urdu-speaker can get hold of these, though, or someone can come up with at least one English-language reliable source more substantial than the ones I have seen, this may be an unavoidable case of WP:BIAS - though I would urge leaving this AfD open for at least another week to try to avoid this. PWilkinson ( talk) 13:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Umais Bin Sajjad, how do you support the subject that has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. I have checked English and Urdu sources before nominating for deletion, I did not find. If anyone can?. Justice007 ( talk) 19:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: fails WP:BASIC, if he was popular, he would be covered in many (I'm talking 50-100+) reliable publications. Esquivalience t 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.