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 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)[reply]

PS: Also see WT:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise Way[edit]

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 Wise Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 12#{m{anchorencode:The Wise Way))|View log]] · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are dubious except two (Business Recorder and Daily Times). While the latter is dead link and is no more accessible but the former one only reports about the launching of book, not a review. given the self promotional circumstances, i would suggest to delete. --Saqib (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Here is the book on Google Books with no such review which verify his claim. Here is other one for Zarb-e-Sukhan. Greenbörg (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could sample his quality of so-called 'Quotes' here under Review section. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could see 4th page of above linked book of 'The Wise Way', why Daily Dharti is more interested in Ehsan Sehgal. A. Waseem Malik who is editor of Daily Dharti is also editor of his books. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep. Actually, I don't see neutrality than something wrong in the bottom. It looks like a kind of private dispute and Pre-planned agenda. Here raises the grave question of accuracy of the recently involved contributor/ contributors, who just become interested in targeting the subject with all its previous comments (closed) history, rather just normal editing that uninvolved, and neutral editors do. As a neutral contributor, and good for Wikipedia, here something is very serious that is not suitable for the Wikipedia. I see many respected editors have edited the articles of the subject, they didn't object, or they were unaware of the policies? These nominations demonstrate that rules fail, but voting wins. To me, it is open and visible that there are connections to create harassment and ownership on Wikipedia; for me, it is not a problem if there is neutrality respected, but not just personal agenda and enmity with any subject. while each article is well-sourced. I searched some information from my resources that may help uninvolved editors to access the deliberate conspiracy against the subject. I got the authentic uploaded links for reliable sources of the subject, for accuracy. I am surprised that editors do not follow the rules, but tools. Why the editors have the problem about any subject's private life that who is interested in, and who is not, it is not a way to edit the Wikipedia. Editors access the reliability of the sources, not the personal life of subjects or its related life. Editors should first learn the rule that COI does not apply if there is NPOV. More than half Wiki-articles fall under COI, but with neutrality. I am neither native and nor Paki, I am just neutral Wikipedian. I am deliberately not in logged, to avoid future edit warring and agenda edits.

- http://archive.li/uyxn9
- https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/ssJsRE
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otzNVwtzhpU&t=2079s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:F180:1:2E2:2E2:7AAB:9D3D:3421 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You brought unreliable sources. Please give us reliable sources which are independent of subject. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this user is related to User:KingssttLove after looking his video link. Greenbörg (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:G11 Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ - keep per provided sources. Moona Sehgal (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lines like "The Wise Way is an interesting book of quotes on different qualities and styles. It has been written in two famous languages" gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination), just created. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Ehsan Sehgal. This article seems to share the same problems in referencing with the parent article, duplicating many of the inaccessible sources, and making exaggerated claims about what information the references contain. Can't locate anything which establishes independent notability.Landscape repton (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Landscape repton: Delete or Merge? Greenbörg (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"', per 1, 2.

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

The two online user reviews that you link to above are not reliable sources. See WP:USERGENERATED.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this literary work is published by a notable author, Ehsan Sehgal, and popular media of the Indian subcontinent, such as the Daily Times have mentioned it. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 12:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the author The book is not sufficiently important to warrant a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 15 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,

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) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC) — 86.109.55.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please don't copy/paste your statements. Please try to be specific and remember Wikipedia's AfDs doesn't depends on number of Heads but genuine statements. Satements like this are likely to be discarded. Greenbörg (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: closer please take note that neither User:Mar4d nor User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi have ever edited this AfD, despite this user's "keep per them" vote. A fairly transparent attempt by the IP to give their comment some legitimacy. Their comment was straight copy and pasted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination) which Fortuna and Mar4d have edited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bad links and insignificant coverage do not establish notability. Took a while to get down here, had to swim through a sea of SPAs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability in the western world. This would be a better subject for the Urdu Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage needed to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Firstly, this book has only one in depth review in English – [1] – which was published by Daily Times. And I can't read Urdu, thereby unable to search in that language. So, in that context, I can say that it fails GNG. Having said that, the content of it should be selectively merged to its author Ehsan Sehgal. So, it should be redirected there, without deleting its history. As the author's BLP is already at AFD, the redirect will be dealt with accordingly.

Secondly, it seems like the nom has AfDed the author's other book (Zarb-e-Sukhan) as well, although I couldn't find the relevant template at the article. Can someone clarify whether it's a nomination of one book or two books? Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zarb-e-Sukhan has not been nominated yet for deletion but I think it should be as well or otherwise simply merged with bio. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the !votes, it is clear that the previous AfD participants have just focused on one book. So, either a new AfD for the other book is needed or it should be dealt with after the result of the author's AfD. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that Zarb-e-Sukhan is separate and needs its own AfD, but we should wait until after the main Sehgal AfD closes before nominating it as we'll have a clearer idea of what are options are with it. Landscape repton (talk) 18:57, 21 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.