The result was redirect to Ehsan Sehgal. The target page is currently also listed at AfD. But, if it ends up being kept, the redirect makes sense. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect in the discussion here, but WP:ATD argues for that over a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT. This book must have caught the eye of major reviewers but nothing happened. Daily Dharti is unreliable online website which is more interested in Ehsan Sehgal than any one. See here. Greenbörg (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominating this article as no reliable Urdu language source per WP:RS such as Daily Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt etc WP:V his claim. His book even don't have article on Urdu Wikipedia.
plz stop sending me emailz, it is zo disgusting behavior, no one can blackmail my father, i dont know principlz, and i also dont know ur level of judging. i told my father what iz happing here, i know thiz from ur emailz, my father dozent bother that, article waz added by us, remove all articlez, my father credibility dozent lie on u.my father told me---isi and a criminal group from california of usa behind this all garbage iz. i have answered u on common photos section 2. i am not interested my father also not, eleminate all of him. gud luck
Moona Sehgal (
talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Definition of a source, The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
-The piece of work itself (the article, book) -The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) -The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
Definition of published The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.169.48 ( talk) 09:54, 14 July
Strongly keep. Per User:Mar4d, and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. The subject sources demonstrate clear and open notability of the subject, which has been significantly covered by the international main stream newspapers, no matter if that are not anymore online, but we can see on website, for the that, that sources anyhow exist, policy does not force that sources must be online, that must be assessable, and the all sources have been very carefully accessed by the previous nomination for deletion, decision Keep.
International The News, Daily Jang,
and other. The article is with brutally and bad faith being spoiled and cited sources have been removed without the legitimation and consensus. Multiple editors have accessed all the sources, how is possible, if the sources become dead link, subject also become unnotable? It seems clear, here is being shown bad faith against the subject, involving the three editors, whom edits are not considered neutral and fair. There are also the ping editors, who have the same agenda and applying that without respecting the Wikipedia policies.
I found this.
i just feel so strange that what a lack of knowledge to search properly, it is pure blindness with the bad faith, though i not nominated the article for deletion, but u both, what doing with references, removing them, removing text and claiming not notable i cannot believe Wikipedia can bear such kinds of contributors, who have no any clue of the reality. I feel so shame, really i am sorry, i asked help in real life about daily dharti, that is newspaper or just website as u both claim as unreliable, i cannot even think that u both what did with the article, i do not think, i can learn here any good thing except dishonesty, personal jealousy and etc. when i search daily dharti on google, it was on the top,
2 - http://www.roznamadharti.com/contact_us.php (editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.109.55.10 ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — 86.109.55.10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was redirect to Ehsan Sehgal. The target page is currently also listed at AfD. But, if it ends up being kept, the redirect makes sense. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect in the discussion here, but WP:ATD argues for that over a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BOOKCRIT. This book must have caught the eye of major reviewers but nothing happened. Daily Dharti is unreliable online website which is more interested in Ehsan Sehgal than any one. See here. Greenbörg (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Nominating this article as no reliable Urdu language source per WP:RS such as Daily Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt etc WP:V his claim. His book even don't have article on Urdu Wikipedia.
plz stop sending me emailz, it is zo disgusting behavior, no one can blackmail my father, i dont know principlz, and i also dont know ur level of judging. i told my father what iz happing here, i know thiz from ur emailz, my father dozent bother that, article waz added by us, remove all articlez, my father credibility dozent lie on u.my father told me---isi and a criminal group from california of usa behind this all garbage iz. i have answered u on common photos section 2. i am not interested my father also not, eleminate all of him. gud luck
Moona Sehgal (
talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Definition of a source, The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
-The piece of work itself (the article, book) -The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) -The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
Definition of published The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.46.169.48 ( talk) 09:54, 14 July
Strongly keep. Per User:Mar4d, and User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. The subject sources demonstrate clear and open notability of the subject, which has been significantly covered by the international main stream newspapers, no matter if that are not anymore online, but we can see on website, for the that, that sources anyhow exist, policy does not force that sources must be online, that must be assessable, and the all sources have been very carefully accessed by the previous nomination for deletion, decision Keep.
International The News, Daily Jang,
and other. The article is with brutally and bad faith being spoiled and cited sources have been removed without the legitimation and consensus. Multiple editors have accessed all the sources, how is possible, if the sources become dead link, subject also become unnotable? It seems clear, here is being shown bad faith against the subject, involving the three editors, whom edits are not considered neutral and fair. There are also the ping editors, who have the same agenda and applying that without respecting the Wikipedia policies.
I found this.
i just feel so strange that what a lack of knowledge to search properly, it is pure blindness with the bad faith, though i not nominated the article for deletion, but u both, what doing with references, removing them, removing text and claiming not notable i cannot believe Wikipedia can bear such kinds of contributors, who have no any clue of the reality. I feel so shame, really i am sorry, i asked help in real life about daily dharti, that is newspaper or just website as u both claim as unreliable, i cannot even think that u both what did with the article, i do not think, i can learn here any good thing except dishonesty, personal jealousy and etc. when i search daily dharti on google, it was on the top,
2 - http://www.roznamadharti.com/contact_us.php (editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.109.55.10 ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — 86.109.55.10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.