Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad


 * 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. Hint: Lots of bold, and large font, and caps are most often a tell-tale sign of the weakness of an argument. T. Canens (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Caiyad Phahad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As I wrote on the previous deletion debate before this self-promotional page was inappropriately moved to mainspace:

Vanispamcruftisement written by a non-notable journalist. Most of the references given are not reliable sources, and/or are not actually about the article subject as required by WP:BIO. MER-C 05:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, oppose userfication, see comment below  per Notability (people) and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The links for "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school", "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University", and "Caiyad Phahad Success News from Institute of Business and Technology" from Daily Jang are all dead links. Judging by their titles, they fail WP:ROUTINE, which states inter alia: "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article ... Run-of-the-mill events — common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out — are probably not notable." The fourth reference, titled "Caiyad Phahad as Moulana Fazal Ur Rehman in Geo TV's Hum Sab Umeed Say Hain", is from Geo TV and cannot be considered an independent source. The fifth reference states: "This video was found by the moovyshoovy search engine on youtube.com. Owner of this video is the youtube user Caiyad." It cannot be considered a reliable source. The other sources are mostly interviews the subject has done or photos/articles written by the subject (example). Owing to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, this individual fails Notability (people), and the article fails Verifiability and Biographies of living persons, and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that  exhibited poor judgment in moving this policy-violating, promotional, non-notable user page to the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom, self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Yup... this article is self-promotional... but does it serve the project better to guide this one-note editor, or push him away from the project entirely? This BLP appears to have at least some sourcability, though NOT in English. Would it not be better to request an Urdu-reading Pakistani Wikipedian to instruct the author about conflict of interest and tag it for sandblasting, rather than delete it entirely? I note the amount of Pakistani Urdu language coverage indicative perhaps of notability to Pakistan despite the author being the subject.  The Daily Jang (the links worked for me)  is the oldest newspaper in Pakistan, and even though most of us en.Wikipedians cannot read or tranlate Urdu, does that mean give up on it? Interviews offer what interviews offer... Urdu or no. We need to consider whether the subject paid FM 101 Pakistan to interview him, or if he was notable enough to the Pakistanis to be worth interviewing. I'd hate to see a contributor turned away simply because we do not have Urdu speaking/reading Wikipedians able to asist in his guidence or involved in finding and translating sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All this user has to show for the 2.5 years he's been here is an irredeemably self-promotional biography. He's not here to build the encyclopedia and hence needs to be shown the door. MER-C 09:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but OUCH! His 48 total edits in 2.5 years tells me this guy is still a newb, despite the timeframe.  Heck many of us make more than 48 edits in a single day.  Does his editorial inexperience mean we toss a possibly improvable topic along with its non-disruptive contibutor simply because it needs cleanup and he lacks experience?  I noted above my being aware of the editor as being single-minded, but his user talk page and its history show only a welcome template and then a series of advisory warnings. As a community, it behooves us to do more for a non-disruptive newcomer besides simply templating them that they may have messed up... without anyone explaining how they did so or showing how the issue can be addressed.  As he wishes to (so far) concentrate on one topic (not strictly  disallowed), I just left him a note with a link to WP:PRIMER. And toward your concrn about WP:NHBE, and though belated, it appears he IS trying to figure this place out and HAS asked for assistance and clarification so as to be a better contributor.  Pardon, but I do not think it is the best option to toss, or even suggest tossing, someone who is trying to finally understand simply because he did not receive guidence in the past.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Userfy back to 48 edits newcomer author who has specifically asked for help, so that A) he may create something seen as more suitable for mainspace, and B) so that he may himself become a better editor. Wikipedia can be difficult for newcomers, but we do not punish them for newcomer mistakes when they are so open to becoming better editors. Let's help someone who asks for help, to become the better editor.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

COMMENTS / REPLY TO COMMENTS OBO CP PLEASE: To (WP ENC) thats a very rude message, all the data has been supported with references, the only difference is between Caiyad Phahad Article and Other Articles that lot of articles has been written by others for someone or by their own friends or someone whose very closed to him or admired him and in Caiyad Phahad case i am the one whose writing this whose his manager thats it, if you see the content its all very similar
 * WP:Caiyad 

To: Vanispamcruftisement written by a non-notable journalist Can you please mention which one do you think is unreliable as per Wikepedia so i can remove it

To: Cunard i admit that it does not take you to the content directly but there nothing reliable than Daily Jang in Pakistan, its the oldest and top news paper, the issue with Jang Website it does not allow you to view back date issues second the news are like more than 8 years old and some are older at that time there was no concept of E PAPER In pakistan it was only Print Copies, i have attached the print copy with the link, if you have doubt please verify it with Jang People directly, i have mentioned date of published

I have removed movie showie link as its connected to his You Tube Channel, the reason to give this link is just to give idea to people with doubts to see actual video with the channel logo in it, for Hum Sab Umeed Say Hay i have also included the video link now if you think the link i have given earlier is not sufficient

To: USER and Cunard  has helped me re-writing this and she is the only one in whole wikepedia who came up and helped me as unlike asking for help many times people has just simply mentioned this DELETE THIS PAGE she is the one who came up wrote to me and explained me that where i went wrong and she helped me improvised the content

To: USER DonCalo and NHBE as i mentioned earlier its not self promotion, i am just promoting an artist i am working with the only difference is that i used his name as USER so you think i am promoting myself while in other articles people used dummy names or someone else written for me, if you would have written this article for CP then it would have been right, i am just paying the price for 2 and half years that i am his co worker and i used his name to write this article and i have been treated as spammer or something despite providing so many references

 To User: • Gene93k on what basis you have put the article under deletion thats rude and not supportive

 To User: Schmidt,  thats very supportive and helpful, see i am writing it for Caiyad Phahad, i work for him, the issue is that i am his relative, close friend and his co worker, what you said its right but i feel some people have missed the english articles too, thanks for all your support, i wish that this page should go live with help of people like you, Sarah and all

HE IS KNOWN BUT NOT AS KNOWN AS ELVIS PRESLEY OR GEORGE MICHAEL OR ANYONE IT DOESNT MEAN HE DOESNT DESERVE A SPACE IN WIKEPEDIA THEE ARE MANY PEOPLE ARTICLES ARE THERE IN WIKEPEDIA WHOSE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO HIS FAME THATS BIASNESS PLEASE IF YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE SOME CONTENT SOME REFERENCES I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT BUT PLEASE I HUMBLY REQUEST ALL DO NOT DELETE THE PAGE


 * The "delete" position's main argument is that the subject is non-notable because he has not received nontrivial, non-routine coverage in reliable sources. As I explained above, articles titled "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school" and "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University" cannot, per WP:ROUTINE, be used to establish notability. There is little difference between the subject promoting himself and the subject's "relative, close friend and his co worker" promoting him. Both violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. Given that the page was to be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Caiyad, and given that the page was moved to mainspace to circumvent that consensus, I do not believe this two-year-old promotional page should userfied. Repeatedly moving this page between the mainspace and userspace to prolong its being on Wikipedia is unacceptable per WP:NOTWEBHOST. and, please state below whether you agree or disagree with userfying this page. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this page should not be userfied for the reasons I outlined in the MFD debate. MER-C 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 PLEASE READ BELOW WP:NOTWEBHOST and  

I hereby request Mr. Notwebhost, MER C and DonCalo to please review / read the article again as few changes has been made as per your instructions, as requested earlier please ask me to remove some content of it, please do not remove the whole article "if one part of body is not working / or needs treatment you do not kill the person, you treat or remove that part"

I humbly request some consideration as even making so much of changes and removing alot of contents i still receive same feedback, as mentioned "Caiyad Phahad won Inter School Cricket Tournament Title for his school" and "Caiyad Phahad Graduated from IQRA University" these are published in The Jang which is Pakistan biggest newspaper if in case you want me to translate i can else please ask any URDU WIKEPEDIA STEWARD to review and verify, nothing can be more reliable than THE JANG in Pakistan but i am not stubborn i am willing to make changes as per your instructions and orders but please be wise and supportive, you are all experts of WIKEPEDIA and i am not, i am way beyond and learning, i have just make an account to write for him and in future i may write for others too, would need your kind attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 09:38, 8 October 2011‎ (UTC)


 * I do not think these changes have rectified the notability concerns advanced by the supporters of deletion. There were shuffling of paragraphs and additions of primary sources (a YouTube video in which the subject played a role and an article written by the subject). I reiterate that the Daily Jang articles constitute routine coverage—"announcements" (perhaps submitted to the newspaper by the subject or his family members)—and do not establish notability. I have asked, who is listed in Category:User ur-3 and can contribute with an advanced level of Urdu, to review the sources. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still overtly promotional and still contains elements of a resume. MER-C 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

 Please make it simple for me, if you want me to delete something i can or change something i can, i hereby request you very humbly and gently please tell me what content you think should be removed and i will do straight away to finish this instead of making it a huge argument, i appreciate your time and i value it that is why my request is very simple, please advise to all  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think this fails WP:GNG, still is self promotion and also there is a huge conflict of interest. You asked for advice: I think you should have this deleted before you embarrass yourself even more. Wikipedia is not a fansite: go to Facebook. I also oppose userfication. This article does not belong on Wikipedia and the user is only here for blatant self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Don't bite the noobs. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DonCalo EMBARRASS well i dont think i am being embarrassed by this neither the person i am writing it for, i am surprised if you or any one thinks this way, i guess you guys are being biased, i have done my best to put up this and i am again ready to remove some content if you think its not backed by any valid ref, but i wont agree or appreciate to remove this article, i can show you many examples on Wikepedia like this then what will you, the articles you do for people are also for promotion or their biography or info so whats wrong i have done, i also wrote about celebrity backed by references and enough references Carrite how do you define any one's worth man, you own the world or wikepedia i am wondering who allows you to talk in such a language, dont take me mean but what if i comment on your comment and say "WHAT IS YOUR WORTH"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiyad (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    20:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)




 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. → Σ  τ  c . 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: A blizzard of self-promotional, self-submitted or otherwise unreliable sources; what we're not seeing here are news articles from reliable journalists, published in reliable publications, about the subject. WP:BITE does not require us to suspend the policies governing notability and verifiability in newcomers' favor.  Further, I have considerable sympathy for the premise that two and a half years in, it is incumbent on an editor to become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines; no one gets to be a newbie indefinitely. That being said, Caiyad, no one is demanding that you agree to the article's removal, or appreciate the action when it is removed.  Certainly, if you've found other articles on Wikipedia that you don't think meet our notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for deletion if they cannot be adequately improved.  Ravenswing  15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems somewhat signifigant, appears well referenced, just long enough, I'm making a personal copy. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the GFDL-violating, WP:UP-violating userfication of User:Phoenix B 1of3/Caiyad Phahad. Consensus at the MfD was that the page does not belong in userspace. A move to article space circumvented the consensus at MfD to delete. Moving it back to userspace is again circumventing the consensus at the MfD and this AfD., , and , please comment about whether you agree with this userfication by Phoenix B 1of3. Cunard (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The full MfD was cut short after less that two days because the page had been moved to the mainspace. Of the MfD participants, three supported deletion, one was the user himself and supported keeping the page, and one moved the page to the mainspace but described herself as indifferent. Thus, I don't think we can say that there was truly a consensus at MfD. If the MfD had run the full week, there probably would have been a consensus, but it didn't. (Disclaimer: I was the person who closed the MfD, because the page had already been moved to the mainspace, thus making it ineligible for consideration at MfD.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The MfD was circumvented by the move to mainspace. mfd states (my bolding): "You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move it, or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." The rule was adopted to prevent situations like this. I don't believe this gaming of the system should be tolerated by having to initiate another MfD to remove this promotional material from the userspace. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The userpage "draft" was redirected, so this issue is moot for the time being. I still oppose userfication and will consider another MFD if it is userfied. MER-C 09:21, 11 October 2011 (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.