Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Azmi

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. Sam Walton (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Azmi

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

Non-Notable person. Musa Talk 12:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Not notable, un useful article. --Shekhar 07:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is biased The name of Rehan is also included in book published and can be published on demand by Books LLC see here [1]. Nannadeem (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually checked the Books LLC article, you would have known that this "publisher" copies articles from Wikipedia and sells those as books. You should never use Books LLC as a source here. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Now my point is clear. One can earn through WP deleted articles(+talks). But general people cannot receive info without cost. What a notability and reliable source is one discussing. I am afraid of partnership as well. Nannadeem (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Allow me to break up my argument into the following:

Google Books: 7 hits, 6 of which are copies of Wikipedia content (=not a reliable source). That 1 other hit is his name in a credits list (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Google News: 5 hits, 4 of which mention someone else with the same name (=irrelevant sources). That other 1 hit is the poet Rehan Azmi mentioned in a list of attendees of a funeral (=not enough coverage). Ergo: fails WP:GNG.
Note about using Dawn as a source: this "newspaper" claims that Rehan Azmi is mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records as the 7th speediest writer of poetry. Record for being the 7TH, seriously? Looking at the wikipage history, this dubious "fact" was present since the beginning in 2009, while Dawn published its article in May 2012. Seems like they copied Wikipedia without actually checking Guinness (he really does not show up there when searching for "Rehan Azmi", you can check for yourself). In other words, I doubt that Dawn is a reliable newspaper.
Remaining sources (al-qayim.tv and shiamultimedia.com) are even more WP:QUESTIONABLE.

Total verdict: there are is not enough reliable information available for us to write a reliably sourced article, thus Rehan Azmi fails the general notability guideline and this article should be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I suggest the nominator for withdrawal of his move of deletion the article. This reliable source endorses the subject's notability. Later any time, I will search more sources to add. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is no need to have an article on every person named by DAWN or The Express Tribune.--Musa^Talk ☻ 19:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your personal view, not the Wikipedia guidelines, does not work here. We have to follow the rules; there are not any policies that restrict such intentions that you suggest. Read the policies before nominating for deletion.Justice007 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still say he is a non notable person. You need to do your homework. These sources are not enough. Can you find more? and also read WP:Ignore all rules.--Musa^Talk ☻ 00:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HyperGaruda makes a convincing case of non-notability. I've cleaned up the article and its few sources are weak. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic theory about quality variation in Dawn

@GorgeCustersSabre: I was also quite surprised that there was such low quality content in one of the oldest English-language newspapers of Pakistan. But I think I have a theory about that. Recently I've been cleaning up Mai Safoora, which referred to only 1 source: DAWN. I found it somewhat awkward that the news article started with what seems to be an advert and the rest of the text did not seem to be written by a professional journalist. Then I checked the author: "From the newspaper", the same "author" who published the article I had linked earlier. After browsing through "From the newspaper"'s articles, it occurred to me that this specific "author" is probably where readers' letters are sent to and indeed many of its articles are signed at the bottom by people who clearly are no journalists, like here. In all, I would say that Dawn's articles are only reliable sources if they have been published by non-random authors, such as this article by Atika Rehman & Ali Akbar and this one by the "The Newspaper's Staff Reporter". We should definitely be careful with articles published by "From the newspaper". - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HyperGaruda. That's very interesting. I'll take a look through a sample of Dawn articles. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft & userfy at best for now as none of this solidly suggests a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Conflict of interest Please see the edit summary of the page in the current week. Can one vote for deletion same day after copy-edit/clean-up? I think he must first undo all his editing before voting for the deletion. I see no familiarity with the subject who are voting for deletion. Nannadeem (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Appears to have been a coatrack too, until a recent nuking by Georgecuster. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking at the article as it now stands (thankyou User:GorgeCustersSabre for cleaning it up), subject does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. I know notability does not rely on the article's content but if any editors can find, for example, reliably sourced reviews of his books that would be very helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2015 (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.