Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseer Soomro (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sandstein 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Soomro

edit
AfDs for this article:
Naseer Soomro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I AfD'd this last year but failed to follow up so somehow it was rescued. This BLP was created by a close relative of the subject User talk:Arif80s who also created several other Soomro related BLPs - which were eventually deleted via AfDs last yr. So basically the subject fails to meet GNG and WP:AUTHOR.. the article claimed the subject has authored some non-notablel books and some dubious and offline sources were cited to backup some other made up claims which fails verification. Seemingly articles appears on a notable personality but when one digs a little deeper, can locate some trivial coverage and namecheks in few Pakistani newspaper stories but nothing in depth or significant... Anyways I've trimmed down the page.. If anyone can cite here some solid coverage (two links would be more than enough) and I'll be willing to withdraw this nom. Saqib (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This nom has been placed under some wrong category. Would appreciate if someone fix it. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Already discussed and decision is keep. No need to discussed once again. Arif80s (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arif80s: I am afraid you're being topic banned and so you're not supposed to comment on AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind, this article is written by me. How can you ban me on discussion of article delition? Any policy? Arif80s (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arif80s:Why not ask here ? --Saqib (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Mr. Saqib, Where is my article? Where is my reference given in this article? You want to discussed only single line article? Your this act is very bad impression on users who want to write enwk. Naseer Soomro is renowned sindhi language poet. His six books published. Naseer Soomro's poetry is included in CSS Sylabus. You removed this reference. Why? Arif80s (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had cited some dodgy, arguable sources on a BLP which I've rightfully eliminated and I urge you to not reinstate them. If the subject is indeed some renowned poet, why not establish here the N? --Saqib (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Arif80s: Can you re-list the sources here? As the discussions continue, other users can also air their views and we come to some meaningful conclusion. --Muzammil (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@امین اکبر: Teachers and authors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO. their ability to qualify for standalone Wikipedia entry is determined by criteria at WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR, respectively. --Saqib (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My unassertive comment was not intended to 'convince' anyone.  samee  converse  20:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found some stuff related to the subject (Naseer Soomro) on the internet which probably our friends can re-examine before any conclusion (youtube is not a source; just an indicative):
  1. Listing Naseer as a notable poet by Dawn newspaper: "Poets Naseer Soomro, Sattar Pirzada, Ghufran Ahmed, Dr Mansoor Malik, Irtiza Husain Gohar, Atif Tauqeer, Babar Ata, Yasmeen Yaas, Bilqees Ali, Sheeba Haidri, Ghalib Irfan and Prof Khayal Afaqi paid their tribute to Sacchal Sarmast in verse."
  2. Listing of Naseer as a notable poet in Daily Pakistan: You can look for Urdu text "نصیر سومرو"
  3. Naseer in the book release event reported by BBC: You can search in the same way. The write up carries Naseer's critical comment as well.
  4. Naseer Soomro recites his poetry at Anis Ansari Academy function
  5. sale link of Naseer's book --Muzammil (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. My comments are concerned with sources used to establish notability. And I don't think the provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. Merely having some namechecks type of press coverage (given their abundance, these days) does not makes one notable enough to merit a standalone entry on WP. Further, GNG says require "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". & I am afraid the provided coverage is not satisfactory. --Saqib (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who's talking about "sources to support claims within an article" and your distinction between those sources and sources to establish WP:N is completely made up. If you actually look at WP:GNG you'll see that it requires sources that discuss "the topic directly and in detail," which is what we have here. This is not "namecheck type of press coverage," whatever that is, but coverage that is more than a trivial mention. And there's more in my !vote below. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It is you who thinks the provided sources discuss the topic directly and in detail, and that this is not "namecheck type of press coverage. Two sources provided above are in Urdu language. Do you even know this language or just being airy ? Anyways, I don't have anything further to say and I leave it on the closing admin to decide whether the provided coverage is mention in passing or not. --Saqib (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are more sources even than are present in the article and are mentioned above. Here are three more:
    • Ailing writer awaits govt assistance - Pakistan Press International May 17, 2016 Tuesday
    • Poet protests against fake cases - Pakistan Press International April 12, 2014 Saturday
    • Mushaira held in honour of visiting poets of Iran - Pakistan Press International March 4, 2014 Tuesday
Clearly meets WP:GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what this Pakistan Press International is? it was used to be a news agency but now it is more like a news aggregator website with no editorial board at all. Just send them a release and they will publish it without even verifying the content. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: just found an article on Pakistan Press International as it now exists on Enwiki. --Muzammil (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having an article makes one notable but not reliable. We've article on Daily Mail but that does not means we should cite them as a source. And see what I noted above, this agency was used to be a proper news agency but now it is more like a distributor of press releases with no editorial board at all. None of news articles carried out by them contain intellectually independent content and are all based on announcements and PRs. --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naseer_Soomro_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=837596239"