−
Just wondering...how do you archive your personal talk page? I tried following the steps as noted, but they seem really confusing to me. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
−
@PAKHIGHWAY: I let a bot do my archiving, so it's automated. If you edit my talk, you will see the source template at the top under User:MiszaBot/config. Just copy the code over to yours, and it should do it for you. Mar4d (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
−
Saqib, first you deserve credit for creating this article on 21 January 2017. All I did yesterday was to try to expand it a little bit with a reference to a recognized solid business news website Bloomberg.com. I am trying to be courteous to you, rather than revert you as you did to me, and first ask you a question on your Talk page here. I am just curious as to why you removed some of my added lines when they are clearly backed up by Bloomberg.com website. For example, Bloomberg.com website says that he is a "Director of Pakistan Business Council from 2013 – present" and also the Chairman of Descon Limited. In case you were in a hurry and did not click on the Bloomberg.com website link 'Read Full Background' given below the 'Partial Profile Background' shown on their website, then you apparently missed seeing those extra lines that I am talking about? By the way, I do remember you fixing one of my Dawn (newspaper) links for me couple of months ago and I did appreciate your help (it was my fault and all of us make mistakes occasionally). I am just asking you to take another look at Bloomberg.com website's Profile of Abdul Razak Dawood. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
−
@Ngrewal1: I really appreciate you taking the time to write me. It was mistake on my part and I instate the material that I removed. --Saqib (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
−
@Saqib: Thanks Saqib, that's nice of you. We are both working for the same goal - to try to improve Pakistan-related articles on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
−
This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user pagehas not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Ngrewal1(talk | contribs) 4 months ago. (Updatetimer)
−
This user page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last edited at 17:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) (4 months ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.
−
This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user pagehas not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Ngrewal1(talk | contribs) 4 months ago. (Updatetimer)
−
The company was founded in 1972 by Inam Ellahi Shaikh and Ashan Ellahi Shaikh. Nagina Cotton/Yarns (a subsidiary of Nagina Group) was listed by Forbes magazine as among the best-performing-companies with less than US $1 billion in revenue in 2003.[2][1][3]
−
The Nagina Group began as a single company, Nagina Mills Limited, established by Shaikh Inam Ellahi and Ashan Ellahi Shaikh in 1967.[4] Focusing on the production of cottonyarn, it grew with the acquisition of tanneries, factories that produced shoes and ice, and Pakistan's largest jute mill. These assets were lost, however, when East Pakistan separated from the Pakistani Federation to become Bangladesh in 1971. In 2006, Managing Director of Nagina Group, Shafqat Ellahi Shaikh was elected Chairman of All Pakistan Textile Mills Association.[5]
−
(Note: All the stock exchanges in Pakistan – Karachi Stock Exchange, Lahore Stock Exchange and Islamabad Stock Exchange were merged into Pakistan Stock Exchange on 11 January 2016. So the old and modified company trading symbols on all financial websites may not be updated yet)
Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited (incorporated on 20 November 1991) - listed and traded on Pakistan Stock Exchange with ticker symbol PRWM. Mills location is in Sheikhupura District, Punjab, Pakistan. As of 2014, this production facility has 340 textile looms with annual capacity of 55 million linear meters of fabric. This company exports its products to customers in Europe, North America and the Far East countries.[10][4][11]
−
Together, Nagina Group facilities hold 85,416 spindles, 240 Air Jet Weaving Machines and produce forty-eight million pounds of carded and combed yarn annually.[1]
−
−
Nagina Group also operates three private power plants to provide electricity for its mills. The installed capacity of its generators is 30.57 Megawatts. Excess energy is sold to other industrial facilities in the area.
−
−
Nagina Cotton Mills Limited is the flagship company of the Group, established in 1967. The company operates spinning machinery comprising 47,040 spindles with related textile processing machines. In 2014, the Managing Director and CEO of Nagina Group was optimistic about his companies " future business prospects for exports to the European markets."[11]
−
−
Nagina Group is active in the textile and cotton spinning, weaving, energy, real estate, and trading sectors in Pakistan.[3]
−
No progress from previous AfD, no new sources found. Fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Those already present are not WP:RS as many are directory listings. Störm(talk) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep In my view, the 5 references presently at the above article are reliable business websites – (Forbes business website), Dawn (newspaper), Business Recorder (2 references from the largest business newspaper in Pakistan), The News International (newspaper). I honestly don't understand how any one of them can be called a 'directory listing'? I also went ahead and updated all 5 references. This company is a notable company because one of its Wikipedia categories is …Category:Conglomerate companies of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC) anyway.
−
Comment Have you read the guidelines? Nowhere does it say that if references appear in "reliable business websites" then the topic must be notable. HighKing++ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment By the way, Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited (a part of Nagina Group) is listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. So a notable company due to this fact also. I also added 3 more newspaper references today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
−
If there are analyst reports for Prosperity Weaving Mills, then that compeny would surely pass the notability criteria. But notability isn't inherited. Where are the analyst reports and references for this company that meet the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:ORGIND especially). HighKing++ 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Keep Being listed on the stock exchange makes it a sizable enough company in Pakistan. Some more background on the textile subsidiary is mentioned by Business Recorder here. Mar4d (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
−
ResponseMar4d, except *this* company isn't listed on the stock exchange. Also Notability isn't Inherited. Can you clarify again why you are !voting to Keep? HighKing++ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 15:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Delete. Things get a bit tough with cases like this, where we are not dealing with some obvious promo/spam attempt for a start up. It's a mid size company with ~50 years of history. But pretty please, we need sources that are not press releases, and that's all there is in the article. Google Books gives me a snippet " Nagina Group, one of the oldest textile groups in the country, consisting of Nagina Cotton Mills Ltd. Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd and Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited" [1]. And that's all I am seeing in Books/Scholar. We have to face the fact that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is subjective and not a valid. In its half a century of a history, this company doesn't seem to have attracted any serious attention from anyone willing to write about that outside or passing mentions/press releases of 'business as usual'. Therefore, this is WP:YELLOWPAGES type of a fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Delete Excellent analysis by Piotrus above, summarised as "if, after 50 years, there aren't any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, then it isn't notable". Nonsense arguments which are not based on our guidelines put forward by Keep !voters above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment When Pakistan Stock Exchange website shows it's traded on their exchange, there is no doubt it's traded there!!! Other financial, national and international business websites, may not be updated yet.
−
Again, when Forbes magazine lists this company as among the best-performing-companies with less than US $1 billion in revenue in 2003, we can safely assume this company already went through their evaluation process. Forbes website reference is at the above article.
−
Then there are ASIANET Pakistan and 7 other independent newspaper and business website references at the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Response Please read WP:NCORP. All of your sources fails this guideline and most of the arguments put forward against your references are grounded in those guidelines, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and the definition of "Independent Content". 1) This company is not listed on any stock exchange. A subsidiary appears to be but not this company. Also see WP:LISTED as being listed is not a guarantee of notability. 2) Being included on a list is specifically listed as "trivial coverage" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH 3) Not a single one of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements and mentions-in-passing. None contain "Independent Content" (as defined by WP:ORGIND). HighKing++ 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment Let's be reasonable with each other here, please. I took your own above provided link subsidiary and used it to find out that both subsidiaries – Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited and Nagina Cotton Mills Limited of Nagina Group are shown being traded on Pakistan Stock Exchange on MarketScreener International website. Then just to improve the article further, I have even included your two references at the article. We all know that Nagina Group's subsidiaries are part and parcel of the parent company and I am sure the reputable Forbes magazine considered all those factors before giving its rating 'as among the best-performing-companies with less than $1 billion in revenue in 2003'. Anyway, let's not continue arguing over it and let the closing administrator decide what they want to do with this article based on facts and contents of this article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment It sounds like the only point of disagreement at this stage (hopefully my summary is not misrepresentative) is that you say that if the subsidiaries (they are listed, probably because there must be analyst reports although I haven't checked) are notable (generating revenues for the parent) then the parent is also notable. My position is that (as per guidelines) notability isn't inherited and the parent must be notable in its own right. You say notability is established through the Forbes article (implying the Forbes article meets the criteria for establishing notability). I say the Forbes article is "trivial coverage" (specifically, inclusion on a list - fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and furthermore contains zero information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH). Sure - let the closing admin make a decision. HighKing++ 11:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
−
Dear GorgCustersSabre, as a fellow Wikipedian and a fellow Muslim, I am asking you to re-consider your REVERT of my work on Sulaiman Nadvi. I spent some hours gathering information first and then many hours doing the actual editing work. I have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years now, so please don't treat me like a new guy. I also fully realize that you have been on Wikipedia longer than me. You should know and recall that I have NEVER REVERTED your work over these 6 years even though it only takes a few seconds to do so and it's so CONVENIENT! It has been my choice not to adopt a supervising and monitoring role on Wikipedia. My Wikipedia contributions over 6 years have been mainly Islam-related (mostly Muslim personalities) and Pakistan-related, and I believe supervising and monitoring other people's work is also badly needed on Wikipedia since it's the 5th largest website worldwide for daily internet traffic. All kinds of disruptors and vandals need to be stopped also. So both roles, yours and mine, are needed.
−
−
Back to Sulaiman Nadvi, I had fixed and updated all the references. To my surprise, even the reliable Dawn newspaper reference was dead. So I searched for and replaced it with their NEW website for the same title, Myths about Urdu. With the reverted Sulaiman Nadvi article, as it is now, Dawn reference and salaam.co.uk references are dead now! Also Pakistan Post Office issued 'Pioneers of Freedom' commemorative postage stamp material and reference is gone for Sulaiman Nadvi and
−
is deleted which he definitely deserves to have. Sadly, Pakistan Post Office does not maintain its website going back to 1992. So one has no choice but to use other available websites. Please make suggestions here or on my Talk page...Revert is not the only way to go. Either one of us can make the article better, hopefully. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
−
Dear GorgCustersSabre, I went ahead and fixed the dead Dawn newspaper reference plus used the Archived Open Library (California State Library) reference. Sulaiman Nadvi article now has more reliable sources. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
−
−
−
Umrao Bundu Khan (1915 - 1970) was a Pakistani sarangi player. [1]
−
In 1970 Khan emigrated to Pakistan. He was a staff artist at All India Radio and was also a performed at Radio Pakistan. In 1954 he was invited to Akhil Bharatiya Khadi Pradarshini in Karachi, where he gave many concerts. He performed in Pakistan as well as in other countries. Khan was also a versatile singer, who sang mostly khayal, thumri, dadra, tarana, qaul and kalbana. [2][3]
−
Baitul Mukarram Masjid[10] has an Islamic educational institute within the mosque, where students can get Islamic education.
−
−
From the published pictures of the mosque, it looks clean , large and beautiful and it is under the administration of Darul Uloom Karachi. Large number of people come in this mosque to attend the Marriage in Islam ceremony or Nikkah ceremony of their loved ones. Amir Shahab was a 'Khateeb' ('Administrator') of this mosque but he was shot dead by unknown terrorists near Nipa Chowrangi , Karachi on 22 March 2019, Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani was with Amir Shahab but Mufti Taqi Usmani survived the attack.[11][12][13][14][15].
Merge. [was "Keep"] Assertion, not challenged, is that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, the biggest city in Pakistan, which is a major assertion of importance. The deletion nomination is incoherent, as far as I can tell, and has no complete sentences. I interpret its sentence fragments to mean that the nominator views some or all sources in the article as including unimportant/unrelated information, which is not a reason for deletion. I interpret it to mean the nominator sees none of the sources as being reliable, also not a reason for deletion. I take it that the deletion did not perform wp:BEFORE and has no idea whatsover about the actual availabiltiy of reliable sources available in English and Urdu and other languages. Please speak up further, nominator, but otherwise this is frankly suitable for a "Speedy Keep" due to an invalid nomination. If the nominator won't express themselves in sentences, I highly doubt they did adequate other work (and do they speak Urdu by the way?) I will refrain from asking if they speak English. :) (Hey, please take that last sentence lightly, as intended.) --Doncram (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
I rather assume this is a notable topic comparable to Baitul Mukarram National Mosque, in Bangladesh. It would be like deleting St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan) and literally hundreds of other New York City church articles in Wikipedia, because they are all smaller than the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Actually there are articles on more than 100 Catholic churches covered in Manhattan alone (see Category:Roman Catholic churches in Manhattan), much less all the other Christian denominations and times 5 boroughs. Here's a non-sentence for y'all: So literally thousands. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Try also searching on "Jamia Masjid Bait-ul-Mukaram", which is how it is labelled in Google maps. And there are no doubt other spelling variations and complete name variations, also. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
And pics at Beautifulmosque.com webpage about the mosque, which is a reference already in the article but ignored, establish notability 1,000 times better than words, too. Really, User:Störm could you please just withdraw this nomination? --Doncram (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Maybe i was too strong/harsh about that. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Keep. Thank you @User:Doncram you're right as i am also from Karachi and bait ul mukarram masjid is not far from my house it is second largest mosque in karachi after New Memon Masjid (i have also created an article on new memon masjid). Bait ul mukarram is also mentioned in many news website and if you search Mufti taqi usmani you will get to know he is Ameer of that mosque. i don't understand why you are nominating my pages for deletion continuously sorry to say instead of deleting the page you could have improve it just the way you have created few pages recently. i will also add User:Ngrewal1.
−
−
And sorry to say i have seen you're nominating AFD mainly from pakistan and daily you nominating 5 pages on average please don't do it wikipedia is a encyclopedia if pages have no or few reference it will get better in future or pakistani editors will do it.i am dissapointed unfortunately and i was planning to create few wikipedia this week but after i see you're deleting everything than i decided not to create any more article. anyways i am creating and adding more reference also will add reference in urdu language because bait ul mukarram has been mentioned in almost every newspapers of Pakistan.
−
−
here is latest reference i added "Daniel pearl kidnapping and foreign policy" US Magazine (slate) ( Todd, Asra Q. Nomani, Kira Zalan and Barbara Feinman. "Snoopy Ice Cream Parlour and the real story of Daniel Pearl's kidnapping". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 4 December 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ) has mentioned Bait ul mukarram masjid karachi.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Well, to be fair, User:Memon KutianaWala, that reference provides only a passing mention and does not provide any description or history or any other substantial content actually about the masjid itself. The only information it might provide is negative actually: it is named as a place where a terrorist said they have met another terrorist, but that information is not exactly helpful and you didn't put an assertion about terrorism association into the article. Attaching the reference in the front of the lede after the first two words "Baitul Mukarram", along with 5 other references attached there, doesn't help. I guess we can all say we believe that the masjid exists. What is needed to establish the topic's notability for Wikipedia is a few reliable sources actually providing substantial content about the masjid. It is nice but not necessary for a source to be _primarily_ about this place (which this new source is not); it must however provide substantial information about it (which this source does not). This source could possibly be used in the article to support a new assertion about the mosque having association with terrorism, but actually I don't think it even does a good job of that. To make a negative assertion like that would require more substantial development and sourcing; from that one source alone I frankly do not believe, myself, that the mosque is substantial in terrorism. It would be like saying, just because two muslim persons happened to say hello to each other in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral (Manhattan), that St. Patrick's is important in Islam.
−
Also, I mean this as helpful feedback to you, the placement of all references in the current article does seem to suggest that none of them support any substantial information about the mosque. The first seven references follow the second word in the article, as if to suggest they just support the existence of the mosque. Then it looks like four references look like they support the idea that a Mufti (whose association with the mosque is not explained) was with an administrator of the mosque at some other place, when the administrator was killed by terrorists somewhere else, while the Mufti was not killed. And the placement of the last reference suggests it supports the fact that some police and a driver were killed by the terrorists at the other location. I am not sure whether the killing of the administrator would go towards establishing terrorism association of the mosque; is that what you mean to suggest?
−
So, while offhand I tend to believe you that this is the second largest mosque in Karachi, that appears not to be directly supported by any source, so far. Nor does anything else about the mosque itself, besides its existence, appear to be supported, given how the article is currently written. I do still tend to believe that there must exist some sources out there, somewhere, actually describing the mosque (its architecture, its layout, its size) and its history (when was it built, was it the first mosque of the muslim group which built it or not, etc.). It is fair of the deletion nominator, or any other Wikipedia editor, to request that you develop the article better, if it is not to be deleted. Could you possibly please do that? And/or, relating to the question of notability of the mosque, could you here point to any sources which you know of which do seem to actually support notability? sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Hi i could to it better if its not deleted i will add 5 references but they are in urdu language. BBC urdu ( سہیل, ریاض (22 March 2019). "مفتی تقی عثمانی قاتلانہ حملے میں بال بال بچ گئے". Retrieved 4 December 2019. ) has also passing mention of bait ul mukarram masjid but in urdu. i have also mentioned in article that mufti taqi usmani is amir of mosque also mufti shahab.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
−
I removed statements about the mufti to the Talk page. Though perhaps it may be something valid to say, that a given person is or was a mufti of this mosque, if given with supporting reference. However that is still not really saying anything much about the topic of the article, which is the mosque. Is this person more important for something else, i wonder. Note it is not encyclopedic to list the names of staff of a school, say, at an article about the school, it doesn't really help readers know anything. We already could assume that staff exist, and they have names, we don't need to be told what the names are, usually. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
After bbc urdu i have added two more references one is from urdu magazine talking about bait ul mukarram masjid and surrounding and one from urdu news website. any urdu editors are welcome to check :)Memon KutianaWala (talk) 15:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Keep Obviously this article is about a place of worship. I personally am satisfied with the existing large number (15 references) of reliable newspapers plus Pakistani TV channel news website references already there. In my view, it meets Wikipedia notability requirements.Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Thanks, User:Ngrewal1, but note that Wikipedia does not accept articles about any and every place of worship. Just like we do not want articles about every restaurant, say every McDonald's location which can be found on a map. Is there anything significant about this mosque. It was previously asserted in the article that the mosque is the second biggest in Karachi, which impressed me, but someone else removed that, so now there is no assertion of it having any importance at all. Could you help identify any factual statement about the mosque, at all, which is supported by any of those sources, and could be included in the article? Besides that it is a place of worship and it has a location. --Doncram (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment By the way, I have tried to improve the existing references and also have added a related template about 'Mosques in Pakistan'. Hope this helps. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment - Most of the coverage is only helpful to verify the mosque, but still no sources verify the claim of 'second-largest mosque'. Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Störm(talk) 09:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
No problem, Störm, that claim can easily be taken out which I did just now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment. I just removed the majority of the article and its sources to its Talk page for discussion. Besides some interpretation by a Wikipedia editor about some photos, which is not valid to be included in an article, the content removed said nothing about the mosque. User:Störm is correct to be concerned about this article. Even without any sources supporting anything, I still tend to think it is a valid topic. But Storm is right that the content, before and after my last change, actually provides no supported information about the mosque, besides the fact of its existence and location (which anyone can know from looking at a map). The contributing editors here need to learn/understand that substantial information, supported by specific sources, needs to be provided. There has been mention of sources in Urdu, which could be acceptable. Sources do not have to be in English, and they do not have to be available online. But they do have to say something substantial about the mosque, they cannot be merely passing mentions having no actual information about the mosque.
−
By the way, is there a more substantial article in Urdu language Wikipedia or any other version of Wikipedia? --Doncram (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Hi This is the offical website of Darul uloom karachi and they have mentioned about "bait ul mukarram masjid" they are explaining when the mosque was built and on how many acres and students get islamic education and many other details: "جامع مسجد دارالعلوم کراچی | جامعہ دارالعلوم کراچی" (in Urdu). Retrieved 6 December 2019.. --Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
From Google translation of that webpage, it appears to me that the following passage is about this masjid. The webpage covers 4 mosques managed by a university of Karachi, and the passage is: "This mosque has a special status in the mosques of Karachi because of its breadth and style. The mosque and its associated area covers about five acres. There are several sanctuaries in the compound of the mosque Baitul Mukarram. There are five teachers and about two students are studying. There is also a seminar for academic talks; some teaching classes have also been started (up to Rabiya), as well as the Darfalafa and the center of Al-Aqsa al-Islami. Two sectors also serve their own useful service."
−
I am not sure that is all about the mosque from that webpage, because transitions between covering one vs. another are not clear to me. However, yes, that is some detail. It would be nice to know what about its "breadth and style" give it "special status", and more about what that means. Also there is no mention of this being the 2nd biggest mosque in Karachi (an assertion already dropped from Wikipedia article); one of the others covered at the webpage seems to be more important and/or bigger, and perhaps there are other mosques not associated with the university which are bigger. Anyhow, this webpage's assertion of some importance for this mosque perhaps suggests that more information about this mosque might be available somewhere else. --Doncram (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Its 9th day completed and 10th day is started so can someone delete this tag ? as it has all the information updated and i will occasionally update more.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Although there are several "keep" arguments and none aside from the nominator's to "delete", it is not been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed the second-largest mosque in Karachi, nor that in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources exist. It seems likely that this could be clarified, and then I think consensus could be readily reached.
'Comment: To User:78.26, thanks, that is a fair summary. I am guessing that no participant here is going to provide substantial more information though.
−
As an alternative to deletion (wp:ATD), which we are supposed to look for, perhaps the mosque is or could be covered in List of mosques in Pakistan, and the article could be redirected to that row (using an "id=" anchor for the row). There is a mosque there already named Grand Jamia Mosque, Karachi, which is supposed to become the world's 3rd biggest mosque. That is not this one, is it? It covers a mountain top, while I think this one is on the flat between flat boulevards. Merging this article to a row there, and redirecting to it, would be a lesser alternative to deletion of the article. If/when substantial sources and content do eventually emerged, then the redirect could be converted back to being a separate article, with its edit history properly showing early contributions. But maybe this mosque is not substantial enough to be included in that list of very substantial mosques. --Doncram (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
−
In absence of substantial sources being produced, I change my !vote to "Merge", leaving a redirect behind: it seems to be verified as a mosque and a row for it can be created in List of mosques in Pakistan. --Doncram (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Doncram, there is nothing to merge. I also think this should be redirected. Störm(talk) 17:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
I have added few references and will add more in urdu too , the article is ok and have enough references now.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Yeah, but it still seems there is nothing factual to say about this place at all, much less enough to write an encyclopedic article. The English language sources are not about the mosque at all. For example the one sourced to dawn.com is all about some book's price, and towards the end there is passing mention " I had often seen the community police helping the elderly, women and children cross roads near the Baitul Mukarram Mosque in Gulshan-i-Iqbal and the Civic Centre." That is NOT ABOUT THE PLACE AT ALL. I assume all the Urdu language ones are useless also. No facts have been put forward. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Keep The nearest analogy is that we keep cathedrals, but not parish churches, unless they are historic in some way. It's hard for me to be sure of the equivalence, but it seems the importance of this is enough that it should go in the keep direction. DGG ( talk ) 10:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
−
But why do you think this is important, please? The English language sources do not establish importance. Given that the Urdu language sources are provided by the same editor, I think it is fair to dismiss them all as irrelevant. --Doncram (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
Mr Doncram please update your google translator or please let other editor understand the urdu language article is clearly passing everything and notable even bbc urdu has also passing nomination not only this foreign policy has also mentioned this mosque. i repeat again if you don't understand urdu and your translator is not good please leave it and let other editor understand as i have added enough references and urdu language references are of newspaper and blog and they are clearly telling about mosque and other detail there are more than 10000 wikipedia pages who have only one reference or two but they are active no one has put deletion tag to them because that kinds of article is created by "wikipedia admins or editors". this discussion is of pakistan and no one has said about 'deleting' as this mosque has been mentioned in newspaper and other blog and its notable.
−
This is government of karachi website and its in english passing mosque[1] also i am adding few more references.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
−
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.
Keep This website is still useful in gathering references while editing Wikipedia despite the fact they are not adding much new material to it lately. I have been using it. Still they have a lot there that can be used.Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
For you User:Störm, I can similarly say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Seriously though, in fact, I said above that the website is still useful to all Wikipedia editors because of what is still available on this website. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Keep or Merge: In addition to the one reference on the article, I found another reference by BBC Monitoring through Factiva (Factiva BBCSAP0020071111e3bb00439) and one on the Boston Globe here. Unfortunately you need a Factiva account to view that one. I'm new to deletion discussions, so I do not know whether this would be considered trivial coverage per WP:WEBCRIT. So in my opinion keep if this is non-trivial coverage or merge with Adil Najam if it is trivial coverage. Bait30 Talk? 04:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment In addition to the references mentioned above by Bait30 , I took the time to add another 4 following references today:
International news coverage of Pakistaniat.com websiteedit
−
In the aftermath of Pakistan Peoples Party's President Benazir Bhutto's assassination on 27 December 2007, the editor of pakistaniat.com (All Things Pakistan) website Adil Najam was interviewed by The Guardian newspaper to get his sentiments and comments about this event in Pakistan.[2]
Keep: Per sources on previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com which our nom. seems to have conveniently ignored. I'm fascinated what happened to the 2nd nomination. I'll try to work the citations on the article at some point if I get time. Beyond that point I'll shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Djm-leighpark, do you have any WP:RS or are you in habit of commenting keep because you like it. Störm(talk) 16:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment: It is ridicous to present this at AfD without having links to the previous AfD's. I suppose at least there was an indication this is the 3rd discussion ... though it might be the fourth.
Once notable always notable isn't it. Of course sources have now linkrotted from that era. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
No, you can re-nominate if you think article is not upto policies of WP, and somehow survived AfD way back when WP policies were not tough. Störm(talk) 17:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment: The nom. has previously been commented as doing WP:VAGUEWAVE when nominating AfD. Can the nom. please explain the problems with defunct website and enumerate and explain with specific figures what is meant by poor Alexa rank. Part of the issue with WP:NWEB is that the article fails to explain the historical significance of the site ... my impression is of reading the article is there is a reasonable attempt of the article to set the historical context. WP:RS seems sated by previous WP:AfDs and would the nom. please explicitly contest the sources presented there. If nom. does not do this within 48 hours I suggest moving to speedy keep if this is not reasonably attempted by that time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
When the website was active then recorded alexa rank was 5,543,926 in October 2016 which is poor by any standard and it shows that site had a poor following. Now, when the site is defunct, there is nothing on Alexa rank. Störm(talk) 16:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
You joined on 29 January 2017, but still we have to explain everything to you like a newbie. Please, familarize yourself with WP policies. Störm(talk) 16:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Ah now depends on a glass being half full or half empty. If there be 1,500 milllon websites say, and even 200 million active, that rank of 5million puts it in the top 3% does it not. And poor is a poor word and an emotive word here, it is not necessarily a competition. And be pleased explaining why you are choosing the 2016 Alexa rank when I presume the site was in the old-age stage of it lifecycle. On the May 2005 AfD an Alexa rank of 47,000 was mentioned, albeit unsubstantiated. Be pleased explaining this all to me. Of course I am hoping you have contacted the people from those previous AfD's now you can called their judgement to question? I present all the sources on the article and presented by the keepers at previous Afd's for consideration (Excluding any self referencing its own website). As you will have considered them during your WP:BEFORE you should have considered each individually so it should be simple to present each individually here so you are not simply doing a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC) I presume you are now accepting satisfaction WP:NWEB as you have not mentioned it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
No source discusses website in-depth which we need per WP:GNG. Störm(talk) 18:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Unfortunately still a WP:VAGUEWAVE answer. Specifically list here the sources/links you've considered. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
−
courtesy ping to Störm, as Djm-leighpark raises valid arguments. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notability not being temporary explicitly has a carve-out for AfD discussions: While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. This article needs to demonstrate notability per WP:NWEB, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG or some other applicable notability guideline. So far this is lacking, however a single participant arguing delete is also not a consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
−
@Barkeep49: Am I the only git idiot enough or maybe with the nous enough to sort through dead links and bring existing sources to this site? I've done the minimum on the article to switch on url-status=dead where necessary. Can you please do a temp-undelete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowk.com (2nd nomination) for me, it almost certainly contains nothing useful but I'd like to know the page creator anyway. I'll sift through the existing AfD sources over the weekend as no one else can be arsed to do it. There's also a little precedents news sites in tricky areas are sometimes given a little slack by the community. Tough luck at WP:ARBCOM. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
In the current article the Chowk and Alexa articles will not count for notability etc and the ZNET citation is of seems only passing. The following citation on the article remains:
−
Cemendtaur, A.H. (26 July 2005). Akhtar M. Faruqui (ed.). "Community". www.pakistanlink.org.
−
The problem is that while the nom. by default has claimed to checked these out a consistent failure to spefically identify the sources means I am reliant on WP:AGF that the nom has actually had the both the WP:COMPETENCY and also put in the effort to actually check them out as required by WP:BEFORE before the nom. did the WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Comment: WP:BEFORE D.1 also expects a google books check. Yet at the top of that list for me there is Transforming Education for Peace edited by Jing Lin et. al. [2]. The whole of chapter 10 is devoted to Chowk.com.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
−
@Barkeep49: I observe little discussion in the over 48/72 hours since I have explicitly presented the sources that should have been considered per WP:BEFORE. I observe the nom while on WikiBreak per their talk page has made (a small number) edits in the last 48 hours but has chosen not to return here and I see no evidence of the informing of previous AfD participants whose judgement was to a degree explicitly questioned by the nom. being informed of this discussion. While these sources in my view are sufficient for WP:GNG (and certainly not to be dismissed by a nom. on WP:VAGUEWAVE and would also note the google scholar link here shows page after page of references of Chock.com content being used in citations to support other credible reports and discussions, matching WP:WEBCRIT ([WP:NWEB]]) #1. I therefore call discussion to be closed keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
−
Djm-leighpark, my rule of thumb is I make one administrative action per AfD. Since I relisted I will leave it to another sysop to close. However, I will note while there is no minimum length of time after a relist to close, they normally get closed a week or so after relisting so it probably won't be until then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
−
On 16 January 2018, a historic fatwa (a religious decree or opinion) was issued by religious scholars of many schools of thought to fight global terrorism, extremism and sectarianism. The fatwa was drafted by means of consultative process among most prominent religious scholars in Pakistan. This decree was jointly termed as Paigham-i-Pakistan (Message of Pakistan) and unveiled at an official event by the President of Pakistan, Interior Minister of Pakistan and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. At this event, the government wanted to try to make it clear to the entire world that most Islamic religious scholars and the government of Pakistan are united against terrorism, extremism and sectarianism. "The fatwa will provide a platform for national unity..." The interior minister said while addressing the gathering.[10]
−
−
Speaking to Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) news agency, Mufti Rafi Usmani described the unveiling of the fatwa as a historic event in Pakistan. He explained that Islamic scholars from all sects had considered and discussed each word in the 'fatwa document' for months before finally announcing it.[10]
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.
−
Keep Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan is one of the largest university and institution for religious education in the city of Karachi. This article is much improved now. It now has references from two major Pakistani newspapers and two international news websites – Dawn (newspaper), The News International, Arab News, The 500 Most Influential Muslims (The Muslim 500). Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi is one of the top Islamic universities in Pakistan. The one who has added the article for deletion seems to be biased towards the Deobandi school of Islamic thought. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi, Pakistan is notable.16:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Why it is notable? Any sources? ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁(❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 17:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Please read my first comment above about the sources – two major Pakistani newspapers and two international news websites. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notable sources still need to be provided - saying there is sources wont do without proof.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep No evidence of BEFORE; nomination is simply an assertion. One of the main Islamic seminaries of Pakistan. UCS. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
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.
−
−
−
−
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.
Hard Keep. Notable politician related to Jamiat Ulema e Hind. Been Member of Indian parliament. Does not meet the conditions of deletion. Moreover I have added relevant references from Archives of PMO India and others. Now tell me how are you fair in nominating it for deletion. I have seen you earlier nominating pages of Deobandi Ulama for deletion, tagging them as non-notable, it displays nothing but you being biased towards this section. Do some research before nominating any page for deletion. Add more to Wikipedia. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a member of a national legislature. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep - members of parliament, former or current are presumed notable. Tayi ArajakateTalk 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep This above nominator, User:❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ has shown clear and convincing bias, on both India and Pakistan AfD discussion forums, against all religious groups within Sunni Islam other than his own religious sect headed by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in South India, for over a month now that I have been noticing him targeting other people's religious leaders and religious parties. Evidence is right here for anyone to see. He's a man of minimum words, when nominating for deletion. He simply and cleverly calls longtime members of Indian parliament or Rajya Sabha and heads of religious parties, "Non-notable" and nominates them for deletion. So far, I have not retaliated by nominating his religious leader for deletion. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I only nominated for deletion the ones that are eligible for deletion. If my nomination is wrong, you can place it with evidence. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁(❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 02:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
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.
−
You filed two reports at WP:SPI, each with no evidence. In one I've asked you to provide evidence. I deleted the other. These filings are disruptive. If you do it again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I have noticed that you have your own interests in wikipedia, and you contribute well to the related articles. Congratulations. Sharing your knowledge in a particular field to the world is the very core thing every wikipedian should have. But the very basic principle is that nobody in the world is perfect. If you present something before a community (whether online or offline), you ma== SPIs ==
−
−
You filed two reports at WP:SPI, each with no evidence. In one I've asked you to provide evidence. I deleted the other. These filings are disruptive. If you do it again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
−
y be challenged, you may be questioned, somebody may request fact check, and somebody with the authority may take the action if you are wrong. You have to accept all those because you have the responsibility of the knowledge you share to others. I've noticed that you opened a sock puppet investgation on me and another unrelated user without valid evidence, just because you didn't like the edits these two random users made to your favorite topics. You couldn't revert those edits, you couldn't challenge those edits, because they were almost genuine, so you called for a sockpuppet investgation. This behaviour so disruptive and a good wikipedian shouldn't do this. So I'll watch all your future contributions to find any misbehaviour like this, and you'll be corrected or reported.
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.
Keep: The French Ordre des Palmes académiques qualifies her as notable, by WP:NPROF#2:"has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". We are unlikely to easily find much online coverage of a person who died in 2002 in Pakistan, but the major obituary in her country's botany journal is a thorough source. Unfortunately although her obituarists say "In a Memorial reference on 26 November 2002, Dr. Badruddin Soomro, Chairman PARC, Islamabad announced that the Institute of Agriculture Biotechnology and Genetics Research (IABGR) NARC/PARC, Islamabad has been renamed after Dr. Azra Quraishi", I can't find evidence of this renaming (it might have been renamed again - a lot can happen in 18 years!) PamD 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep. I think the order of academic palms and the published obituary are enough, even though the citation record is not impressive by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep These awards are enough to establish notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep Two international awards, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Millenium Award for Best Scintist and Hamdard Pakistan Award. This scientist was definitely notable! Rechecked and updated the existing references. They are all working. There are two or duplicate AfD Pakistan and AfD India listings at the same time by the same deletion nominator! Possibly an unintended mistake? Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
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.
Please leave it alone, when you can see I am still editing it. I placed a
This user page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.
This page was last edited at 17:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC) (4 months ago) – this estimate is cached, update. Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions.
tag on it now. If I start doing that to you back, I am sure you won't like it because we will have Edit Conflicts and lose work this way back and forth. So there is no need to irritate each other. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent incivility and inability to edit collaboratively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
−
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Grand Mufti, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Hammad(Talk!) 10:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Closures of Azra Quraishi and Ahmed Mohiuddin at AfDedit
−
Greetings and my Salaams. This is a checkuser request to you for User:Authordom (old ID - User:Kutyava). I have been editing Wikipedia since 2012 and never have made this kind of request or even a minor complaint to any other Wikipedia administrators against anyone in my 7 years history of editing. Since you are an administrator, you can verify this from my Wikipedia records and history. But this person has pushed me over the edge. Seems to me - he is systematically and cleverly targeting all Islamic religious groups or sects other than his own religious group in South India, headed by Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. From all his Deletion Nominations both on AfD India and AfD Pakistan within last couple months, you can see his pattern of nominations and draw your conclusions. Personally I have never retaliated against him and have never nominated even a SINGLE Wiki article for deletion - religious or non-religious....period! So you can also verify this that I have not provoked him. For example, please just pick up Maulana Asad Madani's nomination by him which resulted as ('Result:Keep') on 12 March 2020. *Asad MadaniNgrewal1 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Could you let me know what areas need to be worked on? I know the categories are missing? Because I still cant understand why the article is not accepted even though its resources are very strong links and credible sources.--Salut65 (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@Salut65:, I understand your concerns but the history section has unnecessary details, which repeat in title holder section and there is no inline citation in the head section. Also, there is already a page existing Miss Pakistan World, why do you need to create a new page with alternate title. You simply can make Draft:Mrs. Pakistan World, a redirect page to Miss Pakistan World by placing #REDIRECT Miss Pakistan World tag on the page. Cheers - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Welfare Party of India. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Muhammad (Karakunnu), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. In this edit summary, you wrote "Ask for citation, not to remove instantly". Please note that per WP:ONUS - the responsibility is on you to provide the citations, not the other way around. Hence, the content that you have added -- without citations -- has been removed. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC) about User:Irshadpp
Sometimes you may be editing an article and want to link a plural to its singular form. For example, to link "Fred Foo was famous for his study of puddles" to puddle, you could link it like so: [[puddle|puddles]]. However, you can save time instead by writing [[puddle]]s.
This also works with adjectives (for example, [[Japan]]ese), regular verbs in present or past tense (for example, [[dance]]s or [[dance]]d) and any other suffixes or prefixes.
However, this method does not work with spelling changes, for example: [[try]]ied does not work; you have to enter [[try|tried]]. It also does not work with possessives, so you may want to use [[Fred Foo|Fred Foo's]] to get Fred Foo's. Using [[Fred Foo]]'s will look like Fred Foo's, i.e. the possessive suffix unlinked, in plain text, and black instead of blue.
Note: if a redirect exists from puddles to puddle you don't actually need to do any piping, it's fine to link [[puddles]] too.
−
Hey, I've filled a report against Authordom at intervention against vandalism. He has been nominating notable Deobandi pages, possibly non-Barelwi pages for deletion, and recently the likes of Asad Madni and Darul Uloom Karachi, and thus misusing this feature. He has been spamming the Grand Mufti page also. He seems to look like owner of any Wikipedia page, who regards every verified edit by others as non-notable because the Mufti is not Barelwi possibly. Can someone block him from editing? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Thanks @AaqibAnjum: for the nomination. Can you put here any sources for your nomination. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁(❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@Authordom:, I saw you nominating notable Deobandi pages recently for deletion, that's not right thing. You could've added more references tag rather, Mufti Rafi Usmani or Darul Uloom Karachi etc are internationally well-known, their notability can't be questioned. If we have articles in stub quality, isn't it better for us to improve them? You can ask others for improvements. I think that directly tagging any notable article for deletion is not right, until one makes proper research on the subject. You could've recently improved Asad Madni, but besides notability, you regarded him as non-notable. If those who had voted, have had not researched on the subject, the page would've been no more, because of your nomination. Right, you follow AfD rules and you've right to nominate any article for deletion. But before it, cleanup, improve tags may be concerned. Hope you get my points. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
AaqibAnjum If you made a report at AIV, then you don't need to make an additional report here. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
The response at AIV was to suggest reporting here, so AaqibAnjum is only doing what he was told. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
AaqibAnjum, Authordom is doing nothing that requires administrator action by nominating articles for deletion. If you think they should be kept then simply make the case for keeping in the relevant discussion. Nobody's word should count for more than anyone else's in such discussions, which are closed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Phil Bridger, thanks for your response. I've been working on the articles whatsoever nominated for deletion by him as I've joined the Wikipedia last year for the betterment of articles related to Deobandi school of thought. I just wanted to take a note of using cleanup, refimprove etc before nominating an article for deletion, mostly when the notability of the subject is widely known. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
CommentAuthordom has nominated articles for deletion almost exclusively related to particular Islamic tendencies in India and Pakistan. As far as I can see, only one (possibly two) AfD out of 63 has been outside of this scope. Numerous nominations show no evidence of carrying out BEFORE which would have easily established the notability of the subject (eg Snow keep here, nomination of an elected politician here). Of the last 10 closed AfDs nominated by this editor, 8 have been closed as keep. Editor has been on Wikipedia for close to two years, so they should by now be expected to understand policy. With this AfD in January nominated under the editor's original user name of Kutyava, they subsequently !voted keep under their new username Authordom in the same AfD. Two blocks in January this year and a block in October last year for edit warring. The editor has been asked numerous times to carry out work appropriately. Seems to be ignoring reasonable requests and unable to apply NPOV to the work undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
−
CommentAuthordom has been piling up deletion nominations for all religious groups within Sunni Islam – Deobandi, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (India), Tablighi Jamaat except for his own religious group in South India. Personally I have hundreds of hours of editing time invested in these articles over the last 4 years. He had me working my tail off, within last two months, to try to prevent damage and disruption by him. This is the first time in my 7 year history on Wikipedia that I am asking for help on ANI. He has pushed me over the edge and I can not keep up with his binges of deletion nominations on both AfD Pakistan and AfD India. My own conclusion is that he has developed his own clever way of nominating where he typically uses the minimum words like 'Non-notable person' for Grand Mufti, Mufti and longtime members of Indian parliament or Rajya Sabha. His nominating words were 'Non-notable Deobandi seminary' for a 69 year old largest Deobandi religious university and institution in the city of Karachi which is well-known all over the Muslim world, not only in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Personally I have never nominated for deletion anything on Wikipedia (not even a single one) because I try my best to show tolerance and respect to all other peoples' faiths. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I wondered about Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah. IMHO any seminary with 4500 students meets the notability requirement, but I know embarrassingly little about Islam in general, I admit I'm an inclusionist, & WP:SCHOOLS doesn't explicitly cover institutions of higher education. The deletion nominations I looked at shared that quality: stubs or short start-class articles that appeared to be borderline cases, & apparently nominated in good faith, but were actually examples of an ongoing issue with Wikipedia. If this tendentious pattern can be confirmed, then we have good grounds to ban Authordom from nominating articles for deletion for an indefinite period. -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
−
llywrch Can you be explicit about the kind of evidence that would demonstrate this for you? The editor's history of nominations at AFD linked above shows a very clear pattern of nominating articles for deletion related to particular sects. Their article creation history shows a pattern almost exclusively related to a sect with origins in Kerela. At AfD the editor has only !voted keep 7 times (that includes the one where the editor nominated and !voted, writing a comment that was clearly intended to be for deletion, but for some reason wrote keep) almost all entirely in defense of the sect from Kerala or related to that; whereas the editor has made at least 64 AfD nominations and one single delete !vote. Most editors will not be balanced (we all veer one side of 50/50 keep/delete), but this editor's actions at AfD are completely skewed. What is of concern IMO is the rapid decline in the editor's number of successful AfD nominations since late February; a function of others (myself included) becoming aware of the ongoing pattern. Sadly, I suspect quite a few of the earlier AfDs closed as delete will need to be examined.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Goldsztajn, the issue of which topics this user creates articles about is not relevant, & does not provide useful information concerning tendentious editing. (If you looked at the last dozen or so articles I created, they would all be on ancient Roman men; but I can assure you am not advocating some bias favoring ancient Roman POV: they had many cultural norms I find objectionable, such as condoning slavery.) What would be useful, IMHO but others may disagree, is to list a large number of articles nominated for deletion, but kept, & show clearly whether or not the only reasonable assumption for their nomination was based on suppressing information about other religions in India. I'll admit that I don't know if it can be done, let alone how to present it, but a careful analysis of their nominations for deletion is what I would want before agreeing to a ban. -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Llywrch - thanks for the reply. I agree that in general an editor's created articles might not be relevant, but here I think it is relevant to establishing a pattern of bias. SPAs are not per se a problem, especially if an editor seeks to operate within a comfort area while respecting policy. However, here what we have is an editor who only !votes keep at AfD on the articles created by themself, which almost all relate to the particular sect the editor promotes. The vast majority of their nominations at AfD target specific Islamic sects within India and Pakistan (Deobandi stands out, but there are others). I will try to put together further analysis as you have asked. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Authordom making nuisances in wikipedia, specially on deletion nominations, removing well cited contents, unwanted sockpuppet/vandal investigation request etc. Even I am new in english wikipedia, faced multiple attempt from him, only due to inclusionist edits on his delete nominations. It is habit to overtagging the articles which doesn't satisfy own interest. I can submit examples for all issues what I have raised here (If required).--Irshadpp (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Thanks to everyone who has given this issue a good eye. The user is misusing the AfD and portraying bias through it. Reading all from Goldsztajn and Llywrch, I think it is enough time to block Authordom from nominating articles for deletion. -Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
−
It's a bit premature to say this is a block just yet. We need to see the information requested first. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@Llywrch: Yes, I agree. Can I start by copy/pasting links here from AfD India and AfD Pakistan archives where he was highly active nominating articles for deletion within the last couple months? If you prefer some other better way, I'll do that since this is my first time in presenting 'requested information', I'll need some directions from you so I don't end up violating any Wikipedia rules. Also, I don't want to burden @Goldsztajn: alone for it and would like to try to communicate with him, if possible? My thought is just to copy/paste ONLY the relevant TWO AfD Archive links (one each from India and Pakistan) here and then each individual (estimated 60 to 70 total) AfD Discussion Results can be picked up from there? Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@Ngrewal1: Please wait 30 minutes I'm just working on something.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
−
These are the 25 most recent nominations by Authordom at AfD. I have not analysed more due to time constraints. I have only done some precursory research on those closed as delete, but in my mind at least three are clearly in need of review. That said, we have 22 out of 25 articles which are Deobandi related. Furthermore, the nominations all lack any evidence of WP:BEFORE, only one refers to policy as justification for deletion (and this remains only WP:ASSERTION). Of the 25 below, 21 have been closed, with 10 closed as keep and 11 closed as delete. The editor's pattern of nominations at AfD suggests a strongly focused attention on articles related to this particular Islamic movement and carried out in a scatter-gun approach. The actions of the editor (and hte most recent results of their nominations) suggest a disregard for WP:NEXIST. The editor also refuses to respond to requests to correct actions made in error at AfD.
Authordom is probably a paid editor. This user is one of the most biased editor on Wikipedia. Authordom is spamming all over these particular topics and nominating the topics he doesn't like for deletion. Me too had an experience that the user nominated me and an unrelated editor for sockpuppet investgation, just because I made a honest edit to one of his favourite topics. Please take relevant action.--SnehaRaphael1996 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [3]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [4] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Sneha, I just noticed that you have faced some issues from Authordom, the biased editor I have ever seen on the Wikipedia. I have added a complaint about him on Administrators Noticeboard. I wish you to help me in getting him banned.
@MarkH21: , already taken notice of that. The advice message of Goldsztajn is still there at my talk page. I had just tried to invite her to join this discussion only to discuss issues where Authordom has been accused of being biased. Anyways, this was my err. I shall take care in future. Continuing the analysis of Authordom's bias towards a particular Islamic sect. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
I have been concerned on the articles relating to the Indian Subcontinent of at least a handful of editors nominating sets of articles over a relatively short period of time at AfD over a relatively short time exhausting any significant scrutiny at AfD. That said the sourcing of many of the articles are of the poorest quality; online sources not linkrot protected, and the use of foreign language sources of the poorest quality. Authordom's nominations are often vaguewave; but I do note pre-tagging of Template:Notabilty for a period before AfD nominations which is of some respect. Unless the community increases the requirement for a specifically force non-vaguewave nominations, analyse and penalise accounts that swamp AfD or have unexplained high AfD nomination fail rates, or require those embarking on set of related article nominations to register for support at WikiProject level these issues will continue with multiple editors.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Proposal: Close ANI with no action and no prejudice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Support closing w/o action. Many of the AfD nominations were good and there are no actual conduct issues with Authordom. Though the false allegations of "vandalism", "paid editing" levied on Authordom violate WP:NPA. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment There is a pattern of bias at AfD along with a multitude of nominations carried out with disregard to expected practice (viz. BEFORE), a refusal to respond to reasonable requests, a history of edit warring. I don't actually support closure here given the admin who requested information has not had a chance to reply. I have deliberately not called for sanctions *so far* because the point of ANI is so an uninvolved admin can assess the material presented and make a judgement. Until that point is reached, perhaps we could be patient before jumping the gun. Thanks,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment I do not support closure anyway as per Goldsztajn. I have not accused Authordom of paid editing or anything such;, this comment of the concerned user may be enquired further. My invitation to that user to join this discussion, possibly does not violate any specific Wikipedia rules; agreed that it was not okay to invite Sneha via talk page. Anyways, nominating articles of notable institutions, scholars, politicians of specific group by tagging them as non-notable is clear cut bias. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment 'Closing without Action' would be very unjust here. Just like we were, Authordom's supporters should also be asked for 'informatioin' or evidence for their 'simple assertions' above about Authordom, very similar to his typical style of nominating other religious sects' old established institutions, well-known all over the Muslim world, in his clever and sneaky way on AfD as 'non-notable'. So he would be free and clear to continue doing all that? Many of us, including me, have hundreds and hundreds of editing-time-hours invested in these articles. I am asking for justice here with due process of Wikipedia policy. Thanks ---Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment Can't support closing without any action. AFDs nominations which resulted delete were aftermaths of our negligence regarding his biased behavior. Above there is a list of nominations which should be reviewed. Closing without action is clear injustice.--Irshadpp (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment While I have pragmatically proposed an action due to a stall which would in my view have likely ended up in a closure anyway; I am minded of the good faith effort Goldsztajn has put in. What I will do is place the Template:RfA toolbox here which might give a better quick analysis angle: (While it is usually used at WP:RFA's it might be convenient here; AfD votes it probably particularly useful but other tools might show something also. It admins feel this is inappropriate use of of the template then by all means I apologise and by all means remove and even revdel if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I just randomly picked one of Goldsztajn's table, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi, nominated with the reasoning "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar", state at nomination: Old revision of Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi. The article at that point was not tagged with a notability issue but was tagged with a "needs additional citations for verification" despite it being fairly well inline cited throughout and perhaps the "mkislamicworld" perhaps not being acceptable for the books. The fact most cites were Hindi and poorly embellished with details do make it easy for scrutiny on the English Wiki ... Use of translated titles, authors, language indicator, dates, publishers are all really needed for determination for Notability and rather than assisting in this matter the editors to this point are forcing scrutineers to search for the notability rather than pointing them towards it. So I am minded if this had been pre-tagged for notability and a request for cite embellishment had been in place for a while and ignored I would count that as a justifiable AfD nomination. But a WP:VAGUEWAVE "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar" nomination is not acceptable especially as proven by events the subject was judged notable. So a complaint on this nomination would have been in view justified.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment: When a user is making a lot of delete nominations one would hope the success ratio would be high. In a couple of occasions of high swamps (e.g. 60+ noms over a few days) at AfD when I've done an analysis I recall about 1/3 were keeps, 1/3 were salvagable with some rescuing, and 1/3 were genuine deletes; and while Authordom hasn't done a massive swamp rate at AfD; the delete(nom) keep ratio is probably not great. There's also enough of a problem that we possibly should WP:REFUND all the delete's to draft to give them some scrutiny to check an overall picture.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment: The apparent possible focus bias against Deobandi and other possibly ideally requires a response from Authordom ... a TBAN may be appropriate or a warning of a TBAN might be appropriate. I think an Ds/alert (IP) was only given on 16 March 2020 however if the AfD nominations past that point an admin would be entitled to take immediate action to my understanding ... in fact Authordom might consider offering something like a "no-fault" voluntary self-ban from raising AfDs though some might not think it sufficent.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Support Please note these article have tagged by numerous editors (Over 10) they could not find sources after a normal search that is other than Authordom for notabilty and sources and some of the articles were tagged way back from 2012 almost all of them have been tagged atleast 6 months before they were brought to AFD the last one was tagged in June 2019 and the article at the time of nomination was in a poor state.Further here WP:BEFORE is tough for Deobandi pages as the sources are more likely be in Urdu language and Bengali language may be not be covered in the mainstream media atleast in India or Bangladesh hence WP:AGF to all the 10 who tagged the pages and those who nominate it.One is free to nomiate an article tagged for notablity or sources for years in the normal course of editing.WP:BURDEN applies here as well.
On the Deletions the articles were duly deleted after the going through the sources in the articles which were clearly in a poor state and many cases the WP:AFD was extended. Feel the 10 admins who closed it rightly but one feels otherwise one can go for Deletion review.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
This is missing the forest for the trees. Prior tagging, for however long, does not excuse an editor from reasonably undertaking BEFORE; AfD is not clean up. Moreover, this analysis might be appropriate if all of the editor's nominations at AfD were *not* almost singularly focused on a particular Islamic sect. Finally, I simply do not accept the idea that Urdu or Bangla is a limitation to finding sources; an editor claiming that it is hard to operate in a language should not then be making judgments where use of that language is important (cf. WP:COMPETENCE). --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
WP:BEFORE Point 3 D1 "a minimum search that is expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects" and one would assume gold faith after that whether one is tagging or nominating for WP:AFD .Deobandi pages require extensive search as it is more specialised topic and with Urdu language and Bengali language skills and the mainstream media eg like the leading Bengali newspapers Prothom Alo or Anandabazar Patrika or Ei Samay Sangbadpatra do not give much coverage and a minimum search in foreign languages in this case is not sufficient .Further these were not deleted through WP:SPEEDY OR WP:PROD but after community discussion.Further the articles were nominated only after giving contributors time to develop the article.I disagree this a textbook WP:BEFORE failure.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I am minded it would not be expected nor reasonable on the English Wikipedia on a WP:BEFORE to search for foreign language sources. I am also minded while foreign language sources can count towards notability I do not expect to sift through foreign language citations that are poorly embellished: there is little real excuse for such items such as date, trans-title, author, website, and even quote not to be given rather than expecting scrutineers having to click the link to find out. However this is where WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations are an issue: demonstration these things have been considered in the nomination gives confidence, omission of them means relying on good faith. While ensuring a article is tagged that is a good pre-req before going to AfD it is still incumbent to search for references on a WP:BEFORE. An indicator this is being done will be author improving an article rather than taking it to AfD, the recovery of rotted links and marking of dead links is another indicator. The three AfD's after the issueing of the Ds/Alert(ipa) are particularly open to scrutiny as diligence should have been taken to avoid any possibility of biasing beyond that point. While I had called for this to be closed due to an apparent stall I accept there have been reasonable calls for further analysis.... On a different angle is their evidence of improvement of articles in problem area of bias ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Article nom'd by for deletion requested to WP:REFUNDed to draft for analysis
−
I've requested refund to draft for all article nominated for deletion by Authordom, I'd generally recommend not trying to get these restored to mainspace via DRV as its likely any that could be require movement to mainspace would require improvement first. Most of these will likely left go G13 following 6 months elapse. In addition T. G. Mohandas has re-incarnated. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Please note as I read this discussion there is no dispute with even a single close of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.Further I do not see Deletion Review overturning the close as over 10 Admins have closed correctly based on the state of the article and closed based on clear consensus. If someone wants to work with a particular article they can individually make a request. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I did not spend more than about 10 minutes assessing each item in the table above, but there were three cases (marked) which stood out immediately where a review IMO would be appropriate. If consensus is reached on incorrect information, consensus can change; especially where strong tendencies that conflate clean up with AfD are on display.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I owe you a 'thank you' for helping us on Asad Madni article by providing us a critical reference about Asad Madni being a longtime member of Indian parliament which I later used to expand the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@Djm-leighpark:, I had participated in the AfD discussion of Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi and then I was not possibly aware about how it works, it was only my comment there which saved this article as a draft and also it was my first AfD comment. I am working on the draft though at Draft:Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi. If I had not commented, I do not think that there would have been its draft still intact or that Authordom had not made its way to deletion -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
@AaqibAnjum: Best wishes with your efforts. I'm more interested in the 34 I have requested refunds for. I have reFilled that article, try to fill out the foreign language ones more fully. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Djm-leighpark Please note that WP:REFUND is only for "... Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions (G6) or rejected Articles for creation drafts (G13)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. Here there was participation in most of the debates have do not think Refund is applicable here in most cases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
−
@Pharaoh of the Wizards ... You seem to have missed the follow-on bit where it says: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". Strictly I could be refused by requiring to goto closer's first: Some might refuse, some might email, some might end up at DRV (for refund purposes): and while the amount of time effort for me will be painful the failure to go a full refund the overall admin effort if the long way round will be far more considerable. But if that is the way it has to be then that is the way it will have to be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Frankly I feel this discussion is changing into a 'fog' of statistitical analysis and we are getting far away from the REAL problem of some people using AfD India and AfD Pakistan as 'weapons for clean-up' of their perceived opponents' articles and get their work of hundreds-of-hours-of-editing-time deleted or go to waste. I have mentioned this above before in this discussion and I hope that's not being ignored? On this, I agree with User:Goldsztajn that it's becoming a case of 'missing the forest for the trees'. We are getting off-track in this discussion and getting away from the root cause of the problem – which is AfDs being used as weapons and clean-up forums by some people with their own personal agendas. Some people might suggest that then keep going to those forums and keep voting Keep to save your work? Some results are in front of us and are shown above. When it's so super-easy to bring targeted opponent's article to AfD for deletion by some nominators without even bothering to do the required WP:Before properly, and they don't even get in trouble for ignoring it. Then why not? In this highly cynical day and age and people not having enough time, they end up the winners even if they have partial success in hurting the opponent. In my observation and experience, these deletion nominators at least have partial success due to SOME people with 'deletionist frame of mind' roaming around with their 'deletionist pens' to quickly vote Delete rather than waste or spend their time in looking at the article and then coming back and voting. Not all only some people vote like that, in my view. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I see you are very concerned about "winning" on Wikipedia. This is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, and I suggest that you avoid casting aspersions about your fellow voters at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Not at all, NinjaRobotPirate, in my 7 years of editing on Wikipedia, in retaliation I have never nominated for deletion not even a single article for deletion. My editing record on Wikipedia should show it. I was trying to point out a real existing problem on Wikipedia so we can all solve it together. I would like us to stop petty bickering back and forth during this real crisis of Corona-virus pandemic with the hope that it ends soon and we all can get back to 'normal'. None of us has seen this kind of deadly serious crisis in our lifetime. It's NOT really the time to battle with each other over small stuff, when we have a real health crisis lockdown all over the world. Hope Wikipedia administration soon can come to a decision on this discussion so we can move on. By the way, this is the first time I am seeing your name on Wikipedia. I don't remember ever communicating or dealing with you before on AfD or anywhere else. So let's leave it at that. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
−
−
NinjaRobotPirate Honestly since I hadn't dealt with you before, I didn't even check to see that you were a Wikipedia administrator before writing my above reply to you . I just now looked at your User page. Nevertheless I meant no disrespect to you in my reply. I'll also be glad to cooperate with you or any other admin. to solve this general AfD problem that I mentioned above today. Like I said above in my earlier comments in this discussion that Authordom has been 'piling up' all these AfDs at both AfD India and AfD Pakistan which resulted in 10 'Keeps' and 11 'Deletes' after AfD discussions (taking a quick look at nominations table above). So he had me 'working my tail off' trying to save my own work within last few weeks. Why would I want to 'battle' with him or anybody else for that matter. That's not my previous history on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Ngrewal1 I can understand your frustrations as feeling as having to spend too much time at (on defence) at AfD is mentally draining; and a five minute WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination could result in a multi-hour rescue. However the fact an article needs rescue often (not always) is because it is poorly sourced, cites poorly embellished (especially if non-English), and plain looks wrong, and not protected from link-rot. 90% of the time if it looks right and looks well sourced a WP:VAGUEWAVE nominator won't go near it. While I share your concern some people may be nominating articles relating to the Indian subcontinent on factional lines, and perhaps doing other stuff on the same basis, it is important not to cast allegations unless there is hard evidence. In the case of this ANI I see indicators that seem to me like they warrant further scrutiny. In all events I've just issued you with a Ds/alert reminder and quite frankly I'd pretty well possibly want to consider doing that for everyone in this discussion if I had time but I have to avoid incorrectly issuing any.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
NinjaRobotPirate: I've seen no evidence that Ngrewal1 has made comments with a battleground mentality here. My experience to date of that editor is that they are quite even-handed and respectful. That editor expressed frustration that evidence presented here has been ignored and the key issue raised regarding Authordom's behaviour at AfD is not being addressed. As far as I can see this is your first intervention in this discussion and by only remonstrating that editor it does appear to reinforce exactly the kind of issue with which they were frustrated. This incident was raised over a specific editor's actions at AfD, with at least four editors (myself included with AaqibAnjum, Ngrewal1 and Irshadpp) in clear concurrence. (I have not counted a fifth editor whose comments were the result of a CANVASS or the admin who indicated tentative concern). Two editors (Pharaoh of the Wizards and Aman.kumar.goel) dismissed the claims (although neither addressed the substantive evidence of bias), one editor (Djm-leighpark) has proposed a closure (although this lacked consensus), the editor who is the subject of concern here has not responded, other than with two single sentence demands. Llywrch, the admin who earlier engaged on this, wrote above: "...apparently nominated in good faith, but were actually examples of an ongoing issue with Wikipedia. If this tendentious pattern can be confirmed, then we have good grounds to ban Authordom from nominating articles for deletion for an indefinite period." It would be helpful if we could focus on following up on that. Thank you,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
I have to raise another issue here. Nothing but about similarity of editing pattern of users MalayaliWoman, ArtsRescuer and Authordom. MalayaliWoman has been blocked on 20 April 2019 for sock puppetry. User ArtsRescuer too blocked for sock puppetry on 24 May 2016. Authordom registered on 09 July 2019, and started editing on 08 August 2019. Here I can list some similarities.
AFD requestMalayaliWoman (Reason: Non notable cultural center, created by an user related to the organization, Alyssalevantinecenter, also read Alyssa Levantine Center)
−
Darul Huda Islamic University
−
AFD requestMalayaliWoman (Reason: Non-notable Islamic seminary based on Chemmad, led by Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. The seminary doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. But the seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or CISCE the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is a recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable)
−
This also will be useful to compare pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshadpp (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
AFD request@MalayaliWoman: (Reason: I would like to nominate the article for deletion, because no notability. The man is the self declared vice chancellor of a unaccredited and degree mill institution name as Darul Huda Islamic University)
−
There are behavior of adding multiple issue template in same pattern found. This also to be verified and action to be taken.--Irshadpp (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
−
Goldsztajn thanks for returning the discussion to what the discussion was meant for. Meanwhile Irshadpp has come up with a new issue. I've though checked out a few, these need to be analysed carefully so that we can come to any right decision regarding Authordom - another page P.K. Mohammed has been nominated for deletion by SHISHIR DUA claiming Nominating for speedy deletion, non notable - Authordom while commenting on the same writes, I think he is one of the missing persons in Kerala as per reliable sources. No more notability. Actually he is not listed in the official list of Missing Persons published by Kerala Police. - when I did a normal google search, there was very much independent content available about him and thus I voted Speedy Keep. The only thing I can assume about the comment of Authordom on this deletion is due to the point that P.K. Mohammed's wife had filled a petition against A.P. Aboobacker Musaliyar - the man who Authordom promotes a lot. These things be analysed. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
−
@Authordom: Near the start of this discussion you requested sources be required to support the concern which evolved around good faith concerns of a non-neutral possible Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at/Barelvi agenda. Such an agenda would I believe be a breach of Wikipedia:5P2, namely "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Goldsztajn has presented a series of AfD nominations you have made that that seem to align with that concern. I hope you can understand the concerns and as you have asked for sources/supporting evidence I would appreciate, as might others, your response to such concerns. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No, that thread was a massive wall of text. Just let it die. If something new has happened, you can concisely describe it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
AaqibAnjum Looks like the ANI discussion we (5 above people) participated in is ONLY MOVED TO ARCHIVE FOR NOW without any Result Decision by the administrators. Aaqib, since you were the discussion starter or filer, my best guess is the Wikipedia administration should notify you first before any of us. Please be patient. In the meantime, thanks for sending me the alert. This is my first-ever ANI Discussion also. So I don't know more than you. I am thinking how can they leave the ANI Discussion unresolved? Let's wait for a day or two to see what we hear from them? Best Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
I also ask the Teahouse people here to help remove this confusion by giving us more info or to help us understand. Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Ngrewal1, maybe the issue is that the discussion remained silent for much time. Anyways, let's see what happens. I do also not know, what next? This is why I came to teahouse for help. Best. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
−
@AaqibAnjum: Any followup regarding that massive wall of text () needs to be at ANI. Not sure why it wasn't formally closed by anyone, but that's the place to ask. The Teahouse is really for simple, non-admin issues, not dispute resolution or behavioral problems. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
@AlanM1:, I have raised the follow up issue back at ANI. Looking for any good result. Thanks. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)
No, that thread was a massive wall of text. Just let it die. If something new has happened, you can concisely describe it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Just let it die is it your opinion or an administrative decision, @NinjaRobotPirate:. How can a bot move this discussion without a proper discussion or consensus. This move probably a mistake happened. Will you kill any discussion, just because of mass content. Why not understanding the history how this discussion became huge. Which is nothing but investment of many editors.
−
Now if you are saying let it die it is a clear insult on those editors.--Irshadpp (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Can anyone help me to archive my talk page? I have tried but there is something missing. want to do the archive Year wise. Jai49 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
See: Help:Archiving a talk page. For example, I do it quarterly and manually. I create an Archive page such as User_talk:Jai49/Archive_1, then cut and paste from your User Talk to the new Archive page. Next time I create Archive_2 and so on. That's one way to do it. -- Alexf(talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep Meets BIO. NEXIST; AfD not clean up. Notable financier, high-level political connections, active in Pakistan and the Gulf, appearances in the press since the 1990s. Part of the BCCI scandal, imprisoned for three years.[6][7][8][9] An ASSERTION that the honour is not notable, only 34 awarded in 2019 (in a country of 200+ million).--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
Keep as the bio fulfils WP:ANYBIO – the subject has received an important national award (Sitara-e-Imtiaz), ergo is inherently notable. kashmīrīTALK 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
−
The award is third highest honor so they can't pass without coverage. Störm(talk) 13:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Added a few sources. Feel free to search for Urdu sources if you want a proof of more covereage. kashmīrīTALK 15:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment The unresolved question here is whether Sitara-e-Imtiaz is an award sufficiently important to confer notability on everyone of its recipients. I think it can be argued both ways. — kashmīrīTALK 18:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment As only one Wikipedia editor, if I try to diminish or overvalue the award, then it's simply one person's assertion or opinion. Isn't it? Let 'Pakistani people at large' and the Pakistani government decide what its value really is. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
−
I am sorry but Wikipedia is not in Pakistan. It is up to the WP project to decide on categories of people that are eligible for a WP article. — kashmīrīTALK 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Kashmiri - Of course, that is obviously true and we all know it. Everything I write here on Wikipedia is owned by Wikipedia community, not me. We all are supposed to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP Project policy says clearly that we should use phrases based on facts and try to keep a neutral point of view even when nominating an article for deletion. Is that policy being followed? When WP Project people decide that such and such awards are no longer recognized just like reliable and unreliable sources for references on articles. I would have to abide by that and even stop mentioning those awards here on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep Now much-improved article after Kashmiri fixed it and added 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
−
Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment - Saqib, I have recovered the sourced version of the article. Please review and accordingly reconsider. Otherwise, I have to search and add Urdu sources which I presume are readily available. Störm(talk) 11:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Before nominating this BLP for deletion, I ran a Google search and found trivial coverage in RS. Nothing in depth. --Saqib (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Most of the coverage is in Urdu language newspapers, magazines which we cannot find in single Google search. Störm(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep - the person is notable preacher and most of the coverage about him is in Urdu. I have tried to gather some, but anyone with Urdu language proficency will be helpful. He is one of the most popular preacher in Pakistan after Tariq Jamil, as per subscriber count on his verified YouTube channel. I think, there are plenty of interviews/coverage in his native language (Urdu/Punjabi) which we are missing in single Google search. Thank, Störm(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Pinging Hammad as they are administrator on Urdu WP and may possibly find coverage about him in Urdu. Störm(talk) 12:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep The person is notable. Due to lack of online English resources. Issue of lack of online coverage of Pakistani related articles, The scholar himself is quite less media frenzy in terms of interviews etc but well known because of his sermons and has quite a fan following. References were hard to find from the automatically tagged resources with the article title on top, but a manual search finds reliable sources both in book and Pakistani mainstream media.[1][2]— Hammad(Talk!) 02:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
−
The more I look into this article the more I realize that Wikipedia is being misused for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)) had substantial support towards delete but it was the ignorance of the nominator (relative of the subject) which outweighed and ruined all sensible arguments.
−
−
Years have elapsed, to date there are no results of the subject on Google news or Google books. Entirely fails WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Orientls: So the first, second, and third Keeps were wrong since as closing admin SoWhy comented in third result - 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.2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete I feel this BLP managed to avoid getting deleted in the previously deletion nominations due to the reason that BLP was very cluttered with unreliable sources and OR which gave the impression that the subject is notable. However, this time around I've managed to cleanup the BLP, remove OR as well all the unreliable references cited previously. And keeping in view of the current coverage, I can safely conclude that the subject fails to meet GNG as well WP:AUTHOR. I still see most of the coverage is either trivial or merely namecheking while the rest of the coverage discuss his non-notable work.
−
−
Also keeping in view of the fact that the subject has been writing his WP bio for a long time now for self-promotion purpose, there's a possibility that all the coverage currently cited in the BLP was produced on the behest of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nolelover: It is an opinion piece written by a writer not affiliated with the source, in the form of an interview which make it fall under self-published content. --Saqib (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Passing mentions in unreliable columns is far from meeting WP:GNG. Are you agreeing that an author from Nederlands is having no significant coverage, not even in Dutch publications? Orientls (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Pakistani Urdu language newspapers are nutrious for producing paid news stories, among sensationalism and non-factual content. I would never establish notability based on coverage in Urdu-language newspapers, solely. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
−
I do not know Dutch language sorry. However, I think, the subject is quite notable but we need more references. If it the case of paid stories/articles, that is problem everywhere, it is not only limited to Urdu. The newspapers I cited, mainly, Rising Kashmir, it isn't a Pakistani paper, rather it is an Indian paper based in Kashmir. I would not agree on this point. Still, we need more BLP sources and I'm trying my best to fix that. He is referred to as Urdu poet and journalist, and thus, we shall have to rely on Urdu sources, unless they ain't depreciated. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete but Draftify: Going through the submissions history, I assume there is a COI issue. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Delete - WP requires sources to discuss the subject in a neutral way, but when you read the sources attached with this article, it is clear they are promotional in nature and might be paid. The subject has a long history of promoting himself and from time to time nominate his own article for deletion (whenever someone objects his notability) and then withdraws it when it is about to delete. Same happened in previous nomination by his daughter. It fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. The article is a mess and should be deleted per WP:TNT. Störm(talk) 07:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I would expect coverage from better sources about a person who spent more than 10 years in self-promotion than the unreliable sources mentioned above. Tessaracter (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Saqib: fwiw, I'm unconvinced this is Ehsan based on what the IP is saying/linguistic patterns, but even if it is I think it's a bit over-the-top to refer to this as "tricks" and tactical decisions. If Ehsan is anything, he's never fully been able to understand the culture of WP despite trying his best to learn the rules, and can feel wronged by the relatively brusque way we all go about our business. No need to make this a bad faith thing. Nole(chat·edits) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
For me amusing part is the way IPs have been throwing the archived links and sources in AfD's and in the talk pages over the years because they're all very similar in nature. Please see this, this, this, this, and this. And isn't that interesting this IP has voted delete here but the same IP on your talk page opposing the deletion of this page. Anyways, I apologies for going aggressive If it sounds like that. --Saqib (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Your imagination amusing me as well, I copied and paste as those were posted - You only removed reliable sources to get the article deleted, edit history proves that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c00:1604:bb00:459b:2ced:129e:aab0 (talk • contribs)
−
−
Sources
−
DESiegel: These sources and nomination for deletion? - 3 times notable per GNG?
Keep Subject is notable. Good Urdu sources.— Hammad(Talk!) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Hammad, there is a issue that these sources don't discuss in detail and are of low-quality and probably paid by the subject. Are you familiar that this article has long history of paid editing and promotional content written by the subject himself? I think you should be detailed in your comment. Störm(talk) 15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
@Hammad: There's page called WP:AADD which says you've to explain and provide solid arguments why this BLP does meet WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
he got war medal from pak army, does he paid for that? - or it is minor than indian film awards? - anyhow delete it as you want, not as policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
An award which is itself is not notable enough, does not makes its recipient notable. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Delete COI issue.— Hammad(Talk!) 17:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
@Hammad: Since you're admin on Urdu Wikipedia, could you please look at the same bio over there as well. The BLP on Urdu WP was heavenly done by IPs. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hammad: do you mind expanding on your !vote here? Is your comment about COI in reference to the sourcing? I obviously cannot read Urdu but I'm curious what your thoughts are about some of the above sources that at least facially would seem to be reliable (biggest newspapers in Pakistan, etc). Nole(chat·edits) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
−
@Nolelover: You need to be aware of the behaviour of this IP - attempting to impersonate an admin. --Saqib (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Delete. I have analyzed every single source, available here in our article, on this facebook page and on his conservapedia article. I can say with complete certainty that he cannot pass AUTHOR guidelines. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Note for administrators: none of the delete votes executes Wikipedia rules since that article 3 time has passed the notability, there are now 31 most reliable sources that are cited in the article, which nominators removed that, claiming the article is not notable. It is a totally illegitimate move of nominators. All delete votes should be considered as just voting without defining rules and reading sources, not as consensus as policies. I do not think, admins are blind, they are here to enforce policies, not personal motives of anyone else. I do not know the subject as you do not know. Since third deletion, fortuna, explained as, this and Mar4d as this, it was edited also as talk page archieve by Lady and Drmies two admins as well. Further more - Overzealous deletion - Myths and facts about deletion as Myth: AfD is a vote. More "keeps" means it'll be kept, and more "deletes" means it'll be deleted.
−
Fact: The numbers of keeps and deletes do not decide the outcome. Entries that are simply votes are dismissed. The comments that reference policies, guidelines, and essays and state why they call for inclusion or exclusion are actually those that will determine the outcome.
−
Meatpuppetry characteristically, because of editing on many articles together, and comenting and awarding on talk pages. It is not coincidental that they all are here with selected decision delete without internet connections for conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm shocked to see this. I've never interacted with MistyGraceWhite, Orientls, Saqib and Störm - my contribution to any article started by Hammad does not pass under meat puppetry, because I had done this at his request on my talk page. Have a look at Special:MobileDiff/955745807, I do not find any article of his where I've contributed besides this. It definitely isn't meat puppetry. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
You all just victimized the article that passes GNG and Notability, whereas, I glanced articles which you created most of those entirely fail GNG as this and professor of rules User:Störm similarly enjoying the project to create such kinds of articles trivial mentioned sources that completely fail GNG and come here to preach others the meaning of GNG - the article you blindly voted to delete, has been edited by the most experienced editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Despite the vociferous protests from the disruptive IP above; based on the investigations done by others and a look at what "sources" I can understand (those is English), there is no doubt that this is WP:SELFPROMOTION... RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 02:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
I do not ask that you registered on 9 May 2020, and you jumped on this article to vote for delete , because of self-promoting, amazing. 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
Yeah, 9 May, a whole day before this AfD was even created, afaics (also, I've been on WP before, but obviously that doesn't require me disclosing my IP, especially not to you). You're convincing no one. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 14:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
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.
−
−
−
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.
−
Keep Seems to me this article may be worth saving. Found many reliable sources to verify his claims including Business Recorder newspaper and Pakistan Today newspaper. Please allow time so the article can be improved. I am working on it right now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Comment This article now has 3 references and 2 external links. As I expected, I had a hard time finding references for a person that had died in 1970. In my view, this article has some historical significance for the obvious reasons...
−
"Hifz-ur-Rehman donated his life-long collection of nearly 1,500 antiquities to the Lahore Museum, including three Quranic manuscripts of historical significance written by Imam Hussain (grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad), many decrees, Chinese porcelain, rare coins, glass objects, miniatures, ivory objects and specimens of calligraphy and Islamic art objects".
−
−
Nearly 40 years after his death, his dedication and service was appreciated and he was awarded by the President of Pakistan in 2011.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
−
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
−
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Keep based on the sources added. Mccapra (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
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.
−
Asalamualaikum brother, I don't know why you mentioned me in this conversation subjected above.
−
−
I am new. Can you please elaborate things what are that?
−
−
Kya mujhse koi mistake huwi ha kahi???? TheChunky (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Wa Alykumus salam. Dear TheChunky you made no mistake. You may see WP:SPI to see that what the discussion is all about. As I saw behavior of Numan765, and other user who AfDed your created article Ababeel (NGO). Both, AfDed a number of articles created by me and Ngrewal1 and also one of your articles. It made me assume they are not two but one. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Numan765, I have put forth my analysis to the behavior of these two accounts being one. If you also can analyse any part of their behavior which violates Wikipedia policies, you can add comments there. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
What to do now? Do we get connected here or we connect on social media? Or something else? TheChunky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
I'll be designing a separate page in my userspace. I'll ping you once I'm done. Best - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
The master is a newbie (joined in April) and sock joined only few days back. Both have Afded my articles which I am counting below. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The editing timeframes also match up (KST stops editing, then Numan starts, and vice versa). — MarkH21talk 15:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
The User:KST981 is 7 days old account and is trying to vandalise Wikipedia. I am agree with Aaqib Anjum Aafī . The user KST981 added AfD tag on Ababeel (NGO) says it have Self Published resources. However, the said article have proper reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18 and many others. The user KST981 claiming these sources as self published. The user have 140+ approximately contribution having about 100 contribution in Main. And his contribution is used only for vandalism. TheChunky (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
The master is a newbie (joined in April) and sock joined only few days back. Both have Afded my articles which I am counting below. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The editing timeframes also match up (KST stops editing, then Numan starts, and vice versa). — MarkH21talk 15:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
The User:KST981 is 7 days old account and is trying to vandalise Wikipedia. I am agree with Aaqib Anjum Aafī . The user KST981 added AfD tag on Ababeel (NGO) says it have Self Published resources. However, the said article have proper reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Kashmir Monitor, Greater Kashmir, Two Circles, News18 and many others. The user KST981 claiming these sources as self published. The user have 140+ approximately contribution having about 100 contribution in Main. And his contribution is used only for vandalism. TheChunky (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
−
−
What is very odd is that both Numan765 and KST981 have posted welcome messages using Twinkle to users who often have no contributions (see table below)
−
This case is being reviewed by RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
−
I think it's Highly likely when you combine the technical with behavioral for Numan765 to Slowthin from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji. KST981 is Inconclusive - and I say this because I'd rather you look for a behavioral information than rely on what I am seeing as it's hard to pin down this result. @RoySmith: another good case to look at. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
DeltaQuad, There's no doubt KST981 and Numan765 are related by behavior. There's enough time card differences (Numan vs KST) that I suspect meat rather than sock. Welcoming zero-edit users is overwhelming evidence; the text of the messages are even almost identical. Previous socks were doing this (slowthin and Endureforce). The text is different now, but the common theme is that contemporaneous messages are identical to each other.
The next question is, should we suspect the recipients of all these zero-edit welcomes? I'd say yes, but if they haven't editing anything yet, there's really nothing to do there. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
@RoySmith: No, the new accounts aren't related to the user notifying, it's just randomly picked from the new users log. Besides the edits are completely different between those welcomed accounts. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 13:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I'd have no objection to that, go ahead and do it. -- Amanda(aka DQ) 13:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Actually, the more I think about this, I'm no longer convinced the welcome messages are a connection. I was originally thinking along the lines of one sock welcoming their farm-mates. It didn't make sense that one would want to advertise your sockiness so blatently, but socks do weird things. But, now that you mention the idea that it's just random targets from the new user's log, I'm no longer sure. Maybe just clicking on a twinkle button 10 times is the most efficient way to get past the autoconfirmed threshold. For all I know, that's common knowledge in sockland. So, yeah, KST981 is still definitely a sock, just no longer quite so sure they're connected to Numan765. On the other hand, the name similarity to KGFT785 is pretty striking. And the interaction report also says connected. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
Renamed case, blocked KST981 and Numan765, closing -- RoySmith(talk) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
I'm looking through the contribution histories to see what should be G5'd. I don't see any point in wasting time on G5 for the welcome messages, but there's some stuff in mainspace and draftspace that may be worth deleting. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
AaqibAnjum, To be eligible for WP:G5, there need to be no substantial edits by others. That would be unusual for an AfD, but if you know of any specific examples, let me know and I'll take a look. Feel free to annotate any non-G5-eligible AfDs with a link to this SPI, however. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
−
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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep The article's current source basically states it was the most important Pakistani label in the decade of the 2000s, and had a virtual monopoly on the market at that time. The article may need to be supplemented with non-English sources, but...if this isn't notable, I doubt any Pakistani label is (which should give us pause). Chubbles (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's a language issue, Chubbles. A search for فائر ریکرڈز in Urdu produced nothing of interest. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep I counted nearly 30 currently popular Pakistani pop singers that are signed up with Fire Records (Pakistan) recording label – all of them are already listed at the existing article. There was already a working newspaper reference at this article. I'll add some more references tomorrow. Certainly a notable recording label in Pakistan! Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment Found and added two more newspaper references today. I do not want to close my eyes to worldwide changes in everything including in the music industry. My argument for my 'Keep' vote above is based on the logic that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which also preserves history and the past practices in the music industry. For example, one can very easily find His Master's Voice article of the British music retailer Victor Talking Machine Company trademark and/or "His Master's Voice" (HMV) company with the famous logo of a dog listening to music from an old gramophone vinyl record player. Later RCA Records got involved in it and so on...
So I did what I could to the above article. Somewhat expanded it, has 3 newspaper references now. Made it a 'Stub article' for now, if someone wishes to expand it further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Ngrewal1. Passes notability. Mar4d (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
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. SpartazHumbug! 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep A notable actress of Pakistani Punjabi films of the 1980s and 1990s. Found and added 2 more reliable references and 1 external link to the article in addition to its 6 existing references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*Delete Small role in non notable movies. Fails WP:GNG. KST981 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete not enough roles that were significant in notble productions to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Can't create article about every trivial contributor. Editorkamran (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete First reference is a mention. scope_creepTalk 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment And the other 7 references show her as being a lead actress in many films of the 1980s? Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep - WP:ENTERTAINER requires that she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is the case. Note that there is no requirement for them to be English-language productions. Wikipedia needs to avoid a bias against recentism: we live in an era when loads of recent stuff is easily accessible on the internet. But people whose careers were pre-internet are just as notable as more recent people - it is just that newspapers, and periodicals from their era is less accessible, which is why there is more stuff on the internet about current actors and actresses than ones from earlier.-- Toddy1(talk) 16:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
GEM COMMENT above by - Toddy1 about HARD TO FIND references FROM the PAST. 18 June 2020
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
He joined the Pakistani television at its Lahore center since its inception in 1964, stayed with it and worked there for over 40 years until his death in 2011. He is credited with introducing many singers – Naseem Begum (only on PTV - Ghulam Ahmed Chishti had already introduced her in film Guddi Gudda (1956)), classical music and ghazal singer Hamid Ali Khan, Irene Perveen, folk singer Iqbal Bahu, Shabnam Majeed and Hadiqa Kiani. All these singers he introduced, as we know now, achieved success later in the Pakistani film industry and television.[1]
Mian Sheheryar died in his hometown Lahore, Pakistan at the Shalamar Hospital on 9 January 2011 at the age of 84. Some of his PTV colleagues including PTV's Lahore general Manager Farrukh Bashir, former PTV producer Mushtaq Sufi and music critic/newspaper columnist Amjad Parvez attended his funeral.[1]
Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.
Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. ...discospinstertalk 01:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Awarded to ?. for his awesome hard work towards Pakistan location articles. Your contribution to wikipedia in this area is greatly appreciated. I've been browsing and we owe you at least a lot of credit and respect for your efforts at starting articles like Abbottabad Tehsil.
The Defence Housing Authority, Lahore (DHA Lahore) (Urdu: اختیاریہَ دفاعی اقامت کاری ، لاہور) is a housing society located in Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. DHA's initial phase was built for army officers and their families (as Civil & Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society and later as Lahore Cantonment Cooperative Housing Society - LCCHS), however, now it serves to both retired military officers and civil population of city as it mainly is a private commercial housing scheme operating under the Pakistan Army.[1][2][3]
The area has also undergone extensive gentrification, bringing in a more wealthy base. The recent influx of population from the adjoining cities.
During the past years, developers have acquired surrounding land, which has increased new development in the area. New developments include a world-class golf resort in partnership with Bandar Raya Developments of Malaysia in Phase 6 of DHA and a shopping and office complex in partnership with Global Haly of the United Kingdom in Phase 2 of DHA.
DHA encompasses two famous shopping centres, known as the 'Y-block' market and the 'H-block' market.
DHA Y Block also has a sports club, gym, a large commercial swimming pool and other sports facilities for the community. DHA Lahore main office was also located at Phase III, Sector Y but the management has decided to relocate the office at Phase VI, Sector A, just to accommodate number of people, who visit office on daily basis. There are other smaller commercial markets in DHA- like T block which has many cafes - like Hot spot, Jammin - Java and various other salons. T block commercial area also has the first swimming pool & spa equipment display center called Olympic Pool.
Two international standard sports complexes have been planned in the area and construction has started on the projects as of 2011.
Currently, DHA has nine phases, from phase 1 to phase 9 that are open for possession of the civilian population. The remaining two phases, from phase 10 to 11 in the process of extensive development. Each phase has a number of sectors or blocks having English alphabets as their names which are further subdivided into plots for the construction of houses ranging from the land area five marla (approx. 1361 square feet) to 2 Kanals (approx. 10890 square feet). Each phase also has a central commercial area for shops and offices catering to the community. The phases of the most construction and population are the Phases 1 to 6, with Phase 7,8 and 9 being scarcely populated. The overall plan of Phases 1 to 4 displays an older style of town development with narrower roads, streets and grassy areas, also without underground wiring for electrification, while also lacking sector mosques. Phase 5,6 and 7 being the most recent in terms of planning and development show sixty feet roads as well as broader streets, with underground electrification and each sector or block having its own mosque.[4][5]
Defence is divided into 10 subdivisions (or phases), which each phase being subdivided further into blocks. Each phase also has a central commercial area to cater to the local community. Housing construction began from Defence I and proliferated east and south towards what is today Defence VII. The remaining four phases (Defence VIII, IX, XI, XII) are currently under development. Housing plots range from five marla (approx. 1361 square feet) to 2 kanals (approx. 10890 square feet). The central headquarters was originally located in Defence III, Sector Y but relocated to Defence VI, Sector A to accommodate more residents in the neighbourhood.[6]
The main hospital situated in the heart of DHA is The National Hospital. Alternative hospitals within easy reach of DHA can be found on the Defence Main Boulevard (the road leading to the main DHA entrance). In addition to the hospitals, small clinics can be found in markets all over. Many pharmacies can also be found scattered throughout DHA, Lahore. Government of Punjab, Pakistan tries to take preventive measures every year to control the Dengue virus spread throughout Lahore city area including DHA, Lahore.[7]
Links for Wikipedians interested in India-related content 
Rs. 832 million,
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Grand Mufti, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Hammad (Talk!) 10:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Muhammad (Karakunnu), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. In this edit summary, you wrote "Ask for citation, not to remove instantly". Please note that per WP:ONUS - the responsibility is on you to provide the citations, not the other way around. Hence, the content that you have added -- without citations -- has been removed. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC) about User:Irshadpp
No
Yes
No action
Possibly
) needs to be at ANI. Not sure why it wasn't formally closed by anyone, but that's the place to ask. The Teahouse is really for simple, non-admin issues, not dispute resolution or behavioral problems. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Done - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Highly likely when you combine the technical with behavioral for Numan765 to Slowthin from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji. KST981 is 
Inconclusive - and I say this because I'd rather you look for a behavioral information than rely on what I am seeing as it's hard to pin down this result. @RoySmith: another good case to look at. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
To edit, please log in.
