Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Mehmood Khan


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address the analysis of the quality of the sources, instead going on at length about tangential issues such as other articles or user conduct.  Sandstein  08:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ehsan Mehmood Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This analysis is essentially a summary of 's discussion here. Using this version of the page, there are seven sources. None indicate notability per either WP:N or WP:PROF. That is, none discuss the subject of the page in detail; instead, most are citations of the individual's work indicating he has written articles for newspapers and the like. Below are the seven sources used: There is no demonstration of notability in that there is no discussion of Khan, his actions or his publications. An academic (or in this case an analyst) being cited does not establish notability. Since NLinpublic's analysis, additional pieces written by Khan have been added but none are about him. There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding notability - merely having published pieces is not sufficient to pass notability; the page's subject must be demonstrated independently notable through discussion by others. Since the page's subject is from Pakistan, we could use Urdu sources per WP:NOENG if they can be located but to date none have been integrated into the page (and would require careful vetting due to translation issues, natch). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) dead
 * 2) An article written by Khan, which does not establish notability
 * 3) A page indicating he is an alumni of "National Defense University"; a source, not an indication of notability
 * 4) Khan is cited by another author - not an extensive discussion, merely two brief paragraphs in which Khan is quoted (it's a little more complicated than that, but irrespective does not establish notability)
 * 5) One of Khan's articles is mentioned as a see also in an academic paper, no indication of notability
 * 6) As with 5, Khan's work is used as a see also rather than an actual discussion of Khan himself; does not establish notability
 * 7) A third example of Khan being cited, not being discussed (on page 28, footnote 5)
 * 8) A variety of external links have been added to the bottom of the page; these all appear to be written by rather than written about Khan and thus do not establish notability.


 * Unfortunate delete - My (very) full rationale is linked above, and there's more discussion on the talk page that might be worth reading, most of which (an example) I participated in. The gist of it is that Khan writes a lot, but doesn't have anything written about him and fails the GNG and ACADEMIC. NLinpublic (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is not determined by what happens to be in the article right now. The question is: is there evidence of notability anywhere?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we aren't to judge what's in the article right now, then what do we judge? Potential? The article has been heavily edited and added to, and you aren't going to find many other good sources easily. NLinpublic (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm asking whether anyone knows of further sources. I don't.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone knew of other sources it probably wouldn't be at AfD, would it? :p NLinpublic (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't follow. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind... NLinpublic (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete - I'm very surprised to find that such a well-known analyst as Khan is barely mentioned by anyone else, but such seems to be the case. It is conceivable that he's widely discussed in Urdu or other non-English languages, and I feel we ought to check properly that that's not the case before we delete - help, anyone? But apart from that we have no choice, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOENG, if such sources are available then they can be used to demonstrate notability. Naturally, this will open the unpleasant can of worms that is translation.  However, until these sources are found, the point is moot.  I'm willing to withdraw the nomination in the face of acceptable sources in Urdu or other languages, but until they appear...  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have tried to save the article,giving main points and tips of the reliable sources to verify the notability of the subject in Urdu.But unfortunately it has been ignored rather than providing the sources that would establish WP:Notability. I have already searched the google in English and Urdu,but found nothing,even not just one reliable source to qualify the notability of the subject.Thus I support the move by User:WLU. Justice007 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: #1 has been archived on web.archive.org: Adil, Farooq. "General’s Gospel." The Financial Daily. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says: "As for the conflict prevention and resolution, Kayani has taken hosts of measures. In response to post-Mumbai war rhetoric of India’s politico-military elite, Gen Kayani resorted to tri-pronged defence diplomacy, according the defence analyst Ehsan Mahmood Khan."
 * Unfortunately the discussion seems to be citing his words, but it does not seem to discuss the person himself in detail.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also is the Urdu name indicated in the English article written correctly? When I do a Google search of "احسان محمود خان" I only get this Wikipedia article and Wikipedia mirrors.
 * FourDaysLife says that the Urdu for the full name is correct, but it may also be written in Urdu as "Ehsan Khan" or "Khan" - ""احسان خان" and "خان" " WhisperToMe (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition has he been discussed or published under the name "Ehsan Khan"? Are there other spellings of the name that have been used? Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmood"? or Has anybody searched with the word "Mahmoud"?
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Second,in google search,if you a well known person with wrong spelling clicking,in google search automatically appear,"Do you mean that"? and then with wrong and right spelling both names information displays. For the surety, I searched again the names mentioned in your comment,but find nothing except actors,dancers and singers etc. Justice007 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Comment in reply: First,the creator of the subject should know the correct spelling of the name and full information and sources that verify the WP:Notability, if not then creator should not take a risk to creat article on the wikipedia having not one reliable source.
 * I did mean different spellings (not necessarily wrong ones per se, because names in languages used in Pakistan can be written multiple ways in English). While alternate spellings may come up, they don't always. For instance I can search "Yugi Muto" (fictional character in Yu-Gi-Oh!) but Google won't tell me that there are many other ways of spelling both his given and family names (Muto, Mutoh, Mutoo, Mutou, not to mention ones with macrons and circumflexes) (Yugi, Yuhgi, Yuugi, and ones with macrons and circumflexes) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes OK,your point is valid.But creator has written the spelling of the subject,s name correctly,and proof is that that subject itself has written serveral articles in different newspapers with "Ehsan Mehmood Khan".Therefore,there, I think, should not be doubt about it,though I have searched with Urdu name too,find nothing,in Urdu there are not different spellings relating that name.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand this article about a reasonably notable defence and security analyst. Kindly look at contesting note of SubContinentalAnalyst given here. I also went through the edit history of Ehsan Mehmood Khan as well as one other article Ehsan Sehgal which interestingly is an autobiography of who has now changed his user identity as  under courtesy guidance of  who also operates under  identity.  It establishes the fact that Ehsan Mehmood Khan belongs to the same district /county of Pakistan wherefrom the parents /ancestors  of Ehsan Sehgal also do. User:Ehsan Sehgal created his autobiographic stub with courtesy /editorial assistance of Nolelover. It is unfortunate to mention that Ehsan Sehgal used the names of two of his daughters for making requests to avoid deletion of his autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal as per discussion /talk page of his article. Ehsan Sehgal shows that since acceptance (still debatable though) of his own autobiographic stub, he had been inviting troubles to the biographic stubs on people belonging to the said region in Pakistan. He has continuously been reverting and deleting the reasonably reliable references and external links provided by several editors and IPs in Ehsan Mehmood Khan and Nolelover had been unfortunately endorsing every thing he did for the reasons best known to the latter. There is no issue of WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources at present with Ehsan Mehmood Khan. If an article with almost no single verifiable (online) source can be kept in the name of Ehsan Sehgal just because he made about seven requests to wiki-editors in the names of his daughters, then why not an article on a renowned defence and security analyst like Khan can be kept and expanded? Editors invited by Ehsan Sehgal have checked each and every source on Ehsan Mehmood Khan and have acknowledged  that Khan has been cited and referred to by other reputable academics, scholars, organisations and policy makers in their articles and books published in USA, India and Pakistan. What else is notability then? Of course he is not as notable as William Shakespeare at this stage yet he appears quite more  notable to me than Ehsan Sehgal, the brain child of Ehsan Sehgal now Justice007. I, therefore, ask the Wikipedia community to take notice of this dual standard and Keep and Expand this valuable article.--JC Bills (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel positively evil reading this, in spite of the mass of blue links impeding my eyes' progress. I am going to remove duplicate links so others don't have this problem. It looked like this prior to my removing the links.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed many more duplicate links from the posting. --Lambiam 12:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok...where do I start? The allegations of sockpuppetry and COI? The WP:IDHT attitude regarding writing versus being written about? The comparison to Shakespeare? Ahh well...
 * JC Bills, first I want to thank you for the work you've put into the article. Whatever else may happen, you are quite dedicated to your topic. Now, you point to SubContinentalAnalyst's comment at the BLPN. I won't spend much time on it, since all he does is say that Justice has been editing in bad faith ("egoistic edit feud") and repeat the same stuff that you have been saying for a while: that he is notable "beyond any shadow of doubt" and anyone reverting you is in the wrong. Next, you say that both Justice and I have or had two accounts, while forgetting to note that Justice changed his name because of harassment just like this concerning his possible COI. (My second account, NLinpublic, is pretty self-explanatory.) You add that Justice, after getting his own article created, has made life difficult for other Pakistani BLP's because he has a COI. Here's another way of looking at it: Justice has been editing those articles because that's what he's knowledgeable in. There aren't many editors on Wikipedia who focus on Pakistani poets and writers, and its not a stretch to say that Ehsan is an "expert" in that area. There has never been evidence of malice on his part, and his rationales and understanding of policy have been surprisingly accurate for an editor of his type. Lastly, you make comparison to the article Ehsan Sehgal, saying that there is a lack of verifiable sourcing there and so on. Here's something you should know then. All of those newspaper articles are online, and completely verifiable. At this moment, I have images of all of them on my computer, and if you wish I can point you to the website where you can get them yourself. There's no double standard.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nolelover, I really feel sorry if the above description of facts has hurt your feelings yet if you (impartially, justly and cool-mindedly) visit the above blue-coloured userlinks of accounts of Ehsan Sehgal and yourself, it (unfortunately) exposes the kind of Nolelover’s love for Ehsan Sehgal. Both of you had, indeed, been reverting the edits made in Ehsan Mehmood Khan for inclusion of references and external links. Interestingly,  had been declaring various references and external links in Ehsan Mehmood Khan as self-promotional and reverting edits immediately within seconds after they were made by IPs and editors. Quite unfortunate that you still hold him to be a good faith editor - may be for his cherishing remarks about you as placed here and at a number of places in your talk page. Dual standard on the part of both of you is thus possibly irrefutable. I again request to drop such attitude and let this article on Khan kept and expanded. Thank you.--JC Bills (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I...I am speechless...  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand I endorse the detailed contesting note of JC Bills. Of course, there shall be no room for dual standards on Wikipedia.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See above.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also see JC Bills's comments in reply to Nolelover's stance.--JC Bills (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The editors !voting "Keep" need to review the guidelines on notability. Notability is demonstrated, it is not asserted.  In other words - pages are kept because people can find reliable, independent sources that discuss the article's topic.  Pages are not kept because the editors who are !voting delete are mean, biased or have edit warred - see WP:ADHOM.  Pages are kept because somebody managed to find reliable source that discussed the page's subject at length.  Stop talking about the motivation of specific wikipedia editors.  Focus your efforts on finding sources that have lengthy discussions of Khan specifically, or you are wasting your, and everybody else's time as the closing admin will discount your !votes.  Deletion is not a democracy where number of votes matters - the quality of arguments are more important.  To date there has been no actual reasons provided why the current sources in the page are adequate to establish notability; per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they are not.  Please review WP:GOODARG and the notability guidelines for academics to see what is required to avoid deletion.  Please also review the expected etiquette during a deletion discussion and formatting required.  Making a !vote BIG doesn't make it more valid, it just makes it more difficult to administrate the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sock/meat puppetry accusations - JCBills, the accusations of sockpuppetry by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either be backed up by filing a case at WP:SPI or retracted. As for accusing Nolelover/NLinpublic of socking, well as those are acknowledged alternate accounts, that's just ridiculous and should be struck. Lady of  Shalott  23:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lady, . . . the accusations of . . . by Justice007 (and daughters) need to either . . . or retracted probably does not justify here in the light of previous versions of his article's talk page some portion of which has probably been archived? (may be a wrong term here) by Nolelover or some other editor which can still be viewed on Talk:Ehsan_Sehgal. It establishes that he created this autobiographic stub Ehsan Sehgal by using names of two of his daughters for making requests to Wikipedians to avoid deletion of that article and that's what he has actually admitted on your talk page found here and now having been caught almost red-handed, he has himself proposed Ehsan Sehgal as AFD again under Nolelover’s courtesy by deposing himself to be a victim like Hussein ibn Ali. As regards, Nolelover or NLinpublic's running two accounts, that's really not the actual area of my concern but his dual standard. Calling it ridiculous by you also does not value being irrelevant. I have nothing to do as to why, how many, legitimate or illegitimate accounts he has been running. That's what the Wikipedia admins (like you) have to see. He, however, may be out of wiki-love, endorsed almost every 007-type edit Ehsan Sehgal did with Ehsan Mehmood Khan.--JC Bills (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability requires that there be coverage about the subject. I just don't see the significant coverage about Khan that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand - Some interesting discussion has gone in. Clearly, if the article is not as notable, it is not as non-notable too. Thus, deleting it would be received controversially. In such a case, it is better to give the benefit of doubt to the creator of the article. Besides, none can say that the sources on the article don't exist. At best, it can be said that the sources are "weak." Weak too for the advocates of deletion. The contenders believe the sources to be strong enough to verify notability. I think, when the person has been cited in one of the books published in the US and a number of other publications as shown in the references, it makes a good case for notability. In my view, it should be kept and expanded. After all, we are looking for notability and not nobility.--Intelligible (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) — Intelligible (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete – I was unable to find multiple third-party sources covering this subject with much substance or depth (WP:BASIC). I was also unable to find many non-trivial third-party citations amenable to meeting WP:AUTHOR, or third-party documentation of accomplishments to pass WP:PROFESSOR. I tried searching in Urdu, but made no progress (my skills aren't stellar, but I tried to look carefully). This subject clearly exists, but doesn't meet WP:N at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 18:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with JFHJr. The individual doesn't meet notability requirements to qualify as encyclopedic.  Stubbleboy 18:18, 14 January 2012 (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.