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 keep.

Even if a subject's daughter's request is within WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (which can be argued it is not), the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. While withdrawing an AFD is not a reason for speedy keeping when there are delete !votes before withdrawing, it does negate those !votes that were based on BLPREQUESTDELETE.

As for the rest, once a number of sources were provided and offline sources made available, there were no further delete !votes based on lack of sources and the previous delete !votes did not discuss the new sources. The only later delete !vote mentions that somehow notability requires impact on the Western world but that's not a reason for deletion. No policy requires sources to be in English nor that they are available online; per WP:NEXIST their existence is sufficient. Consensus was that sufficient such sources exist to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC.

Regards So Why 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsan Sehgal

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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)[reply]

i withdraw my nomination per provided sources by NitinMlk and request to forbid to spoil the articles by repton & greenbrog & question them for wrong practice. is anybody there who can do it? Moona Sehgal (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~Moona Sehgal (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia and after their deletion I can't see he passes WP:AUTHOR. Greenbörg (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I appreciate that, but also note that
Although Wikipedia 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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update 2: One of the most extensively used sources that has been questioned (the Daily Dharti) turns out not to be at all independent of the subject. Details can be found in this section of the talk page. The Daily Dharti has also announced a few days ago that Sehgal has given out a prize for edits made to Wikipedia.

Unconnected to that, it seems we suddenly have a lot of new anon users who's only edits are on this topic. Landscape repton (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 "[Sehgal] 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)[reply]

@Landscape repton:. here is the archive copy and it doean't says anywhere "[Sehgal] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Comment – The sources are fine, as most of them are Pakistan's major national newspapers. But the problem was with the overly promotional tone, which has already been dealt with. The present version has just bare facts about the subject, nearly all of which are already reliably sourced. And the article can expand from here. BTW, if any source makes extraordinary claims then it can be easily dealt per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. So, that's not the issue as well. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment – Jytdog, the link given by you is of Daily Dharti, which is a regional Urdu newspaper. And it has nothing to do with Daily Times, which is Pakistan's major national English newspaper. Please also see my !vote below. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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,

Nawaiwaqt,

Hurriyat,

Family Magazine,

The Times of Karachi,

2, Daily Times

Nation Today, Daily Dharti,

The Daily Rising Kashmir,

Haagsche Courant,

AD Haagsche Courant, Bussiness Recorder,

Daily Dawn

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,

1- https://www.google.nl/search?q=daily+dharti&oq=daily+dharti&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.6521j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

2 - http://www.roznamadharti.com/contact_us.php (editors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.109.55.10 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading these clipping scans, these could be useful in improving the referencing situation in the article. Would it perhaps be possible to upload some higher quality scans? Some of the sources, such as The International News article for example, aren't quite readable.

I'd invite you to take part in the discussions about the various sources on the talk page of the article. One of the concerns with some sources has been to establish whether they are still accessible or not. That doesn't mean they have to be available online, but the consensus is that they have to be currently accessible to the public somewhere, whether online or in an offline collection somewhere, such as a library collection.

Other issues have been with the reliability of some of the sources (e.g. one of the references that was removed was a WordPress blog, for example), or with the claims in the Wikipedia article not aligning with what was written in the reference. But again, I'd invite you to join in with talk page discussions on specific cases. Landscape repton (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, you are giving link of Google in the Netherlands but your IP shows you are from Iran. Why are you gaming the system per WP:FILIBUSTER. Saying strong keep or keep using different IPs doesn't make any difference as Wikipedia doesn't works on majority or number of heads but sensible arguments. Comments like these are likely to be discarded. Greenbörg (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The links provided by the above anon user show that the cited offline sources of this BLP not only exist but also discuss the subject in detail.

I also looked at the revision history of this BLP. It's clear that most of its online sources are archived at archive.is & Internet Archive. I am adding some of those archived sources here:

Bilingual literary read. Daily Times.
Daily Jang. 15 May 2012.
Daily Jang. 24 November 2012.
A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.
Geo Urdu. 2 January 2014.
Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir

P.S. As one can see in the BLP's revision history, User:Landscape repton – who registered here a few days ago – has cleaned it up, which includes addition of 20 plus tags by them. And its lots of sources & content has been deleted. So, I guess one will have to look at older revisions like this one for analyzing the sources. BTW, the user has also done similar sort of edits at the subject's book article – see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also have noted I've provided detailed summaries for every edit I made, and provided a very thorough commentary on the talk page, sub-divided by category. I have, in cooperation with other editors, stripped out several references--a WordPress blog, an irrelevant article about robots, an entry from a website that states it maintains no editorial controls. I've also added details to others and moved them to more relevant parts of the article. Please judge me by that record rather than the age of my account (which is several weeks, and obviously not created in conjunction with this specific article).

I'm sure this is unintentional, but your tone comes off as distinctly accusatory and unfriendly. If you think some of the changes are not warranted or could be executed different, why not enter into conversation about them first? Landscape repton (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to accuse you of anything. Just read my comment again. I just stated the plain facts. BTW, instead of "several weeks", your account was 10-day-old when I made the comment. I commented about your account's age as I thought your excessive tagging of the article was due to your inexperience. But now I can see that the real reason was online inaccessibility of sources. Now that most of the sources are in front of you, hopefully you will reinstate/add the verifiable content.

I can also see what confused you in believing that the source you mentioned was about robots. If you will look at the Ref 5 in this revision, it reads "....p. 23. Retrieved 9 May 1998." But when you will click on its URL, it will take you to the magazine's homepage, which is showing its latest edition of July 2017. You can see date at the top-right corner of the magazine's cover & also on the left edge of the webpage. Anyway, the scan provided by the anon user clearly shows its page no. & date at the bottom left corner, both of which matches with the article's citation. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: --- I do not let it happens again and again that three editors, Landscape repton, Greenbörg and Saqib's unconstructive edits on the notable subject that twice has been reached a consensus as keep by experienced editors, as,

AfD - 1 Eastmain, Brianhe, Anupam, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday), Mar4d,

AfD - 2

Nolelover, gråb whåt you cån, Yunshui 雲‍水, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex, MJ84,

I ping them, to review it again, to reach the third consensus. I stress that if Wikipedian let such editors, to stay unconstructive editing, we should, surely, expect the 4th nomination. Behind all this revenge full behavior, is the editor Saqib, I have checked his edits and conflict between Justice007, even he disclose his identity, to damage him, strange, Saqib is still targeting him. This is all a drama on the Wikipedia ground, neutral and honest admins must take action to, investigate on the large level of this conspiracy. The three suspected editors remain to persist on their unconstructive and illegitimate edits. It should be stopped, for the best of the Wikipedia project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.58.87 (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note the nomination was withdrawn last night. — fortunavelut luna 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will effect the AfD. Greenbörg (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, since I am the one who told you that on Kudpung's page! It was a procedural point of information. — fortunavelut luna 18:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the subject meets WP:GNG. I've kept Daily Dharti sources out of my analysis as per comments by user Landscape repton. Here's my analysis of the selected sources:

Martial laws badly affected literary activities. The News International.

This is among the most comprehensive English sources dedicated to him. With some efforts, one can read whole of it. The article comprehensively describes the subject's life & career.

A splendid poetry collection. Daily Times.

This source, which is authored by Amjad Parvez, sums up their poetry career along with discussing their book (Zarb-e-Sukhan) comprehensively.

Urdu, surviving against odds. Daily Rising Kashmir:

This source discusses the subject comprehensive along with discussing one of their books. BTW, the newspaper is in editorial oversight.

There are scanned copies of two articles of Haagsche Courant. One of them – Gevlucht – is non-trivial coverage, while the other one – Even vragen aan: Ehsan Sehgal, dichter – is their interview, which surely contributes toward their notability.

I can't read Urdu. So, I will only discuss their reliability & comprehensiveness, but Urdu-speaking participants are invited to translate & summarize their content at the article's talk page:

The multiple sources – [1], [2], [3] (dead link) – published by the Daily Jang definitely show notability.

This comprehensive article of the reputed Nawa-i-Waqt surely adds to notability.

Then there is full page dedicated to them in the Family Magazine. If nothing else, it can be used for describing their personal/non-controversial details, as the source is published by the Nawa-i-Waqt's publishing group.

There is also a full page dedicated to them by the Hurriyet, but it is not present online. Official website of Sind govt. has listed it as a newspaper – see here. And user-generated sources also mention its details – see here. So, we can consider it reliable unless someone can prove otherwise.

The anon user also gave two sources of The Times of Karachi – [4] & [5] – which are reviews of the subject's two seemingly non-notable books. There's no online info regarding this 1990s newspaper. And it should not to be confused with the namesake newspaper, which started in 2015. Same is the situation with the Nation Today, which discusses the subject & review one of their books under the title of Ehsan Sehgal: Poet of Pathos. So, I am not counting them, although not having online presence, esp. in case of older newspapers, shouldn't automatically make them unreliable.

All in all there are at least 10 reliable sources which discuss them in detail. And they are spread over three languages & a time span of few decades. That's more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much we stretch the definition of it. In fact, to see such coverage of the subcontinent's local language poet – who was active mainly till 1990s – is actually surprising.

Now coming to their two books. Zarb-e-Sukhan is poetry collection of their four-decade long career & it consists 1000 plus pages. There are around half a dozen reviews of it in the top national newspapers & it seems to meet notability. But I guess it can be merged to the BLP via talk page discussion, provided the BLP is kept. Their another book is already at the AFD & consensus seems to be going toward merge/redirect, although it is revivewed in quality sources like this one. So, we can dedicate a section of this BLP to the details/reviews of these two books. One of them seems notable & other one has got a few quality reviews. Although none of them might sufficiently meet notability criteria for a stand-alone article, they definitely contribute toward the subject's overall notability.

Finally, not notwithstanding the unnecessary tags of the present version, the article has already been TNTed by the user Landscape repton. And it can be expanded from here on, as we have now access to nearly all of the sources.

P.S. Before the anon user provided copies of the sources – which I supplemented by providing archived links – the participants had not access to most of the sources. One of the editors even tagged the BLP as a hoax. So, their !votes should be evaluated in that context. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have not 'TNTed' the page, which would have entailed deleting everything from it and starting over. I do think, given how much of the page is a creation of the subject and those associated with him and given how pervasive issues of promotional language and mis-used sources have been in it, that that would have been a perfectly valid way to approach the article in this case. Landscape repton (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did TNTed it, although by a different approach. You removed a large amount of content along with moving the remaining content around & fixing its tone, leaving behind a stub, which just contains the bare facts about the subject. Even if you had started from scratch, you would've mentioned those facts, although in much more detail as now you have online access to them. Keeping the fact in mind that it was already edited by others to remove COI, it does count as TNT. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. It's more than a stub atm. If I'd TNT'd it, there's no way I'd have taken responsibility for putting in the properly dodgy sources, like the Daily Dharti links. And I wouldn't have included the articles that seem to be completely inaccessible and unverifiable, like the old News International article. And we don't have a source that supports the bibliography of the article. There's still a lot in there that needs to be properly sourced or cut. Landscape repton (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read the provided sources & improve the remaining dodgy bits. BTW, I've gone through ref 2 of the present version. And will make some of the relevant changes shortly. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going to vote to delete from a different perspective. Most of his writings and most of his audience appear to be Urdu. There's an article in the Urdu Wikipedia [[6]], so I'm comfortable that after deleting this, his information is still available for his audience. I don't want to sound Xenophobic, but nothing that I've read above suggests that his impact has crossed over to the Western world. I saw some wiki-clones with info about him trying to found a group called the Muslim United Nations, but Google doesn't come up with anything that suggests the group got any traction. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's the oddest !vote I have ever seen. Most of the artists, businessmen, politicians, etc. of Asia & Africa have no impact on the Western world. Same is true about a large number of personalities from Europe. So, I guess we should delete those & similar type of articles, which might be million plus in number. You do realise that it is a global Wikipedia instead of being Western world Wikipedia. BTW, if WP is to be believed, Urdu is the fourth largest spoken language in the world. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to read the newspaper clippings and sources, and from the limited info that I could see, I don't see notability. That being said, since he has an article on the Urdu Wikipedia, I felt that was enough, since if he has any cultural impact, that's where it would be felt. I didn't mean to come across as Xenophobic, but without any tangible sources, I'm leaving it up to the Urdo readers to decide if he should be there. I've voted keep and even personally worked to save articles that have no impact on the western world, but nonetheless had no problem proving notability somewhere. Here's an Indian album I saved that was declined five times and ultimately moved into namespace by SwisterTwister [7] and here's I wasn't able to save, as the only keep vote.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament

One can actually see a large amount of legible info from reliable sources. And obviously there are "tangible" sources here. In fact, per WP:OFFLINE, they didn't have to produce those sources which weren't online, but they even did that. BTW, thanks for responding. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2017 (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.