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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address the analysis of the quality of the sources, instead going on at length about tangential issues such as other articles or user conduct.  Sandstein  08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Mehmood Khan[edit]

Ehsan Mehmood Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This analysis is essentially a summary of NLinpublic (talk · contribs)'s discussion here. Using this version of the page, there are seven sources. None indicate notability per either WP:N or WP:PROF. That is, none discuss the subject of the page in detail; instead, most are citations of the individual's work indicating he has written articles for newspapers and the like. Below are the seven sources used:

  1. [1] dead
  2. [2] An article written by Khan, which does not establish notability
  3. [3] A page indicating he is an alumni of "National Defense University"; a source, not an indication of notability
  4. [4] Khan is cited by another author - not an extensive discussion, merely two brief paragraphs in which Khan is quoted (it's a little more complicated than that, but irrespective does not establish notability)
  5. [5] One of Khan's articles is mentioned as a see also in an academic paper, no indication of notability
  6. [6] As with 5, Khan's work is used as a see also rather than an actual discussion of Khan himself; does not establish notability
  7. [7] A third example of Khan being cited, not being discussed (on page 28, footnote 5)
  8. A variety of external links have been added to the bottom of the page; these all appear to be written by rather than written about Khan and thus do not establish notability.

There is no demonstration of notability in that there is no discussion of Khan, his actions or his publications. An academic (or in this case an analyst) being cited does not establish notability. Since NLinpublic's analysis, additional pieces written by Khan have been added [8] but none are about him. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding notability - merely having published pieces is not sufficient to pass notability; the page's subject must be demonstrated independently notable through discussion by others. Since the page's subject is from Pakistan, we could use Urdu sources per WP:NOENG if they can be located but to date none have been integrated into the page (and would require careful vetting due to translation issues, natch). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm asking whether anyone knows of further sources. I don't. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone knew of other sources it probably wouldn't be at AfD, would it? </dry> :p NLinpublic (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't follow. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind... NLinpublic (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOENG, if such sources are available then they can be used to demonstrate notability. Naturally, this will open the unpleasant can of worms that is translation. However, until these sources are found, the point is moot. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in the face of acceptable sources in Urdu or other languages, but until they appear... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second,in google search,if you a well known person with wrong spelling clicking,in google search automatically appear,"Do you mean that"? and then with wrong and right spelling both names information displays. For the surety, I searched again the names mentioned in your comment,but find nothing except actors,dancers and singers etc. Justice007 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean different spellings (not necessarily wrong ones per se, because names in languages used in Pakistan can be written multiple ways in English). While alternate spellings may come up, they don't always. For instance I can search "Yugi Muto" (fictional character in Yu-Gi-Oh!) but Google won't tell me that there are many other ways of spelling both his given and family names (Muto, Mutoh, Mutoo, Mutou, not to mention ones with macrons and circumflexes) (Yugi, Yuhgi, Yuugi, and ones with macrons and circumflexes) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...where do I start? The allegations of sockpuppetry and COI? The WP:IDHT attitude regarding writing versus being written about? The comparison to Shakespeare? Ahh well...
JC Bills, first I want to thank you for the work you've put into the article. Whatever else may happen, you are quite dedicated to your topic. Now, you point to SubContinentalAnalyst's comment at the BLPN. I won't spend much time on it, since all he does is say that Justice has been editing in bad faith ("egoistic edit feud") and repeat the same stuff that you have been saying for a while: that he is notable "beyond any shadow of doubt" and anyone reverting you is in the wrong. Next, you say that both Justice and I have or had two accounts, while forgetting to note that Justice changed his name because of harassment just like this concerning his possible COI. (My second account, NLinpublic, is pretty self-explanatory.) You add that Justice, after getting his own article created, has made life difficult for other Pakistani BLP's because he has a COI. Here's another way of looking at it: Justice has been editing those articles because that's what he's knowledgeable in. There aren't many editors on Wikipedia who focus on Pakistani poets and writers, and its not a stretch to say that Ehsan is an "expert" in that area. There has never been evidence of malice on his part, and his rationales and understanding of policy have been surprisingly accurate for an editor of his type. Lastly, you make comparison to the article Ehsan Sehgal, saying that there is a lack of verifiable sourcing there and so on. Here's something you should know then. All of those newspaper articles are online, and completely verifiable. At this moment, I have images of all of them on my computer, and if you wish I can point you to the website where you can get them yourself. There's no double standard. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nolelover, I really feel sorry if the above description of facts has hurt your feelings yet if you (impartially, justly and cool-mindedly) visit the above blue-coloured userlinks of accounts of Ehsan Sehgal and yourself, it (unfortunately) exposes the kind of Nolelover’s love for Ehsan Sehgal. Both of you had, indeed, been reverting the edits made in Ehsan Mehmood Khan for inclusion of references and external links. Interestingly, Ehsan Sehgal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had been declaring various references and external links in Ehsan Mehmood Khan as self-promotional and reverting edits immediately within seconds after they were made by IPs and editors. Quite unfortunate that you still hold him to be a good faith editor - may be for his cherishing remarks about you as placed here and at a number of places in your talk page. Dual standard on the part of both of you is thus possibly irrefutable. I again request to drop such attitude and let this article on Khan kept and expanded. Thank you.--JC Bills (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I...I am speechless... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editors !voting "Keep" need to review the guidelines on notability. Notability is demonstrated, it is not asserted. In other words - pages are kept because people can find reliable, independent sources that discuss the article's topic. Pages are not kept because the editors who are !voting delete are mean, biased or have edit warred - see WP:ADHOM. Pages are kept because somebody managed to find reliable source that discussed the page's subject at length. Stop talking about the motivation of specific wikipedia editors. Focus your efforts on finding sources that have lengthy discussions of Khan specifically, or you are wasting your, and everybody else's time as the closing admin will discount your !votes. Deletion is not a democracy where number of votes matters - the quality of arguments are more important. To date there has been no actual reasons provided why the current sources in the page are adequate to establish notability; per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they are not. Please review WP:GOODARG and the notability guidelines for academics to see what is required to avoid deletion. Please also review the expected etiquette during a deletion discussion and formatting required. Making a !vote BIG doesn't make it more valid, it just makes it more difficult to administrate the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about whether there are adequate sources indicating Ehsan Mehmood Khan is notable enough to avoid deletion. Please take tangential discussions elsewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sock/meat puppetry accusations - JCBills, the accusations of sockpuppetry by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either be backed up by filing a case at WP:SPI or retracted. As for accusing Nolelover/NLinpublic of socking, well as those are acknowledged alternate accounts, that's just ridiculous and should be struck. LadyofShalott 23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, . . . the accusations of . . . by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either . . . or retracted probably does not justify here in the light of previous versions of his article's talk page some portion of which has probably been archived? (may be a wrong term here) by Nolelover or some other editor which can still be viewed on Talk:Ehsan_Sehgal. It establishes that he created this autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal by using names of two of his daughters for making requests to Wikipedians to avoid deletion of that article and that's what he has actually admitted on your talk page found here and now having been caught almost red-handed, he has himself proposed Ehsan Sehgal as AFD again under Nolelover’s courtesy by deposing himself to be a victim like Hussein ibn Ali. As regards, Nolelover or NLinpublic's running two accounts, that's really not the actual area of my concern but his dual standard. Calling it ridiculous by you also does not value being irrelevant. I have nothing to do as to why, how many, legitimate or illegitimate accounts he has been running. That's what the Wikipedia admins (like you) have to see. He, however, may be out of wiki-love, endorsed almost every 007-type edit Ehsan Sehgal did with Ehsan Mehmood Khan.--JC Bills (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More