Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Ali Laghari


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. A clear WP:SNOW deletion. Also, the article clearly qualifies for deletion under WP:CSD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Asif Ali Laghari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. Previous speedy-deletion request by a different editor was declined. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument for notability is apparent - appears to be some kind of vanity page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless some notability can be demonstrated. 220  of  Borg 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems an odd page for the third edit by a new account, that originally claimed to have been on Wikipedia for over two years. Unless as Someguy1221 suggests it's a wp:vanity page. - 220  of  Borg 04:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The papers exist, but for a paper about e=mc&sup2; some citations by other scholars would help. The English is simple, would a peer review let this pass? –Be..anyone (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and likely fringe science. Peer review of cited articles seems rudimentary at best: why would a paper entitled "Interpretation of Modified Electromagnetic Theory and Maxwell's Equations on the Basis of Charge Variation" (and making absolutely no references to computers or computing) appear in the International Journal of Computer Applications? Creator may well be another sock puppet of blocked user Asifleghari aka. Laghari asif, Princeneil, Dell nole, and several others. Hqb (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hqb you are almost certainly correct. The similar names alone are a giveaway aren't they? Language is similar "Asif's equation/theory ...", same 'journals' cited etc. may be another sock, though they denied any connection when I asked them on their talkpage. - 220  of  Borg 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hqb with due respect, I have answered your misunderstanding regarding me and this page at my talk page and I think the point is clear to all of you now. Nechlison (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 220 of Borg. I was referring to Miller Henry, not you. Hqb (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing like wp:Conflict of interest. I being an independent editor just let you know about the AfD tag placed on the page. According to the Wikipedia's notability guideline for academic see, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", and I think the Thomas ISI indexed research journals with good impact factor indexed in different digital libraries and data bases show reliability of person's research work. Sources provided in the article are enough to identify the such notability and Hqb, if you see International Journal of Computer Applications it is just a name of the Journal which have different field categories according to the subject of science and Engineering. Since the article is completely neutral and if it has any citation, source and notability problem, I have provided reliable sources as much as available and are quite enough to show notability of person. You can discuss it, improve it or finally you can also delete it if the editors decision goes final.Miller Henry (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Note: Miller Henry has been blocked as a sockpuppet of . Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added *Keep before your comment for formatting purposes. If you are not recommend keeping the article, you may change it to *Comment or even *Delete if you wish.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  S M S  Talk 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not found for this undergraduate student. Too early, if ever. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
 * As for as academic notability and reliable independent sources are concerned, you can re-check the sources given in the article. I myself have no intention for this page to be passed and allowed anyway. but being an editor, I think the person notable enough to write decent article on Wikipedia as this person is quite young and has too much well identified and published research papers in reliable Journals and his contributions on the scientist like A.Einstien, Maxwell, Lorentz. Miller Henry (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC) — Miller Henry (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Papers have not made a visible impact (their citation counts are low to nonexistent) and there is nothing else in the article that even makes a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Somehow this looks familiar to me. Did we recently have a similar case or has this already been deleted before under a (slightly) different name. --Randykitty (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment These deleted articles and their revision histories may be relevant (I'm not an admin so I can't verify myself):
 * (deleted by on March 18, 2013 with the comment "it is an essay; see WP:NOTESSAY)"
 * Possibly-related items:
 * - blocked as a result of this SPI
 * (deleted by on March 13, 2013 with the comment "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban]])
 * Possibly-related items:
 * , see above
 * (deleted by on December 30, 2013 with the comment "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban]])
 * Possilby-related items:
 * Articles for deletion/Asif's equation and Einstien's theory of special relativity
 * and his block log, same SPI as above
 * and his block log, same SPI as above
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * davidwr I have already clarified that there is nothing like wp:Conflict of interest or I don't have any connection between these SPI and similar article created before. Also, if there is anything wrong in this article you can delete it. Infact I really didn't know about all these article created by banned users before. But its not my fault, I neutrally made this article. If any one of you neutrally have made the same article without knowing all these facts then that doesn't mean that you are SP of that account/user. You can simply delete this article, but as for as Wikipedia notability is concerned, this article lies under such criteria. since the article has good sources to prove notability of young person. Since the person is actually researcher, so notability can be judge by his Scholar research paper, academic career Miller Henry (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, unless someone with access to information I don't have says otherwise, I'll take your word that this is an unfortunate coincidence . However, there's more to creating an article than not having a conflict of interest.  There's writing about a person (or other topic) that is notable.  There seems to be a large consensus forming that this person is not notable.  Then, if and only if the person is notable, there's writing the article in a way that clearly demonstrates that the person is in fact notable, using reliable, independent sources.  Then there is writing the article in a neutral tone, with a neutral point of view (the concepts are not the same).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Update As you have been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, I am retracing my previous assumption of good faith.  !davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and with a neutral point of view I tried to give reliable independent sources according to Wikipedia academic notability and other notable sources as much as available. Nothing else Miller Henry (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This may boil down to the Wikipedia community having tougher standards of notability and tougher standards for suitability of sources than you do. While as a member of the community your opinion does count some, it counts about as much as everyone else's.  As these standards have been developed by thousands of editors over many years, one editor's opinion is unlikely to shift that of the Wikipedia Community's existing consensus more than a very small amount, not nearly enough to change the outcome of this discussion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * davidwr I do respect and follow Wikipedia guidelines, I am not in a position to change any Wikipedia notability standard or some thing else. I wrote the article and provided independent reliable sources as much as possible. Now, I think I should not be part of this discussion any more, otherwise some one else will blame on me as wp:Conflict of interest that is not actually so. Thanks Miller Henry (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Creator of Laghari page 'Miller Henry' had been blocked as a sockpuppet of. What a shock! - 220  of  Borg 04:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Likely a wp:DUCK, this new user with this. - DVdm (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Or is it? Puzzling. - DVdm (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Nominator comment In light of the above, the lack of support for keeping the page, and the long time it took to expose this sock, I recommend WP:SNOW close under normal AFD rules rather than WP:CSD speedy-delete of page created by a banned/blocked editor so that any future re-creation can be speedy-deleted under WP:CSD re-creation of material deleted after a deletion discussion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  18:02, 3 April 2014 (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.