Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ezatullah (Sorubi, Nangarhar, 2001)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. There are simply not enough sources to write a full, neutral biography of this individual. I found two mentions that, while verifying the information in the article, are no more than trivial:


 * 1) A one sentence mention in a New York times article, which, rephrased, is basically the entirety of the article.
 * 2) Six years later, a mention in three paragraphs of a larger article with some brief quotes

These are trivial mentions and, as such, do not meet WP:N's requirement of a subject's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. All we can say about him is mentioning two posts that he's held and perhaps his opinion as presented by the Wall Street Journal. That is not appropriate for a biography of a living person. It may be argued that he is automatically notable as a district governor (is that sub-national?) per WP:POLITICIAN, in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article. Cheers, CP 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- no offense, but I think there is a difference between notability and notoriety. Nominator seems to be suggesting that the holder an important political position has to be famous (ie notorious) in order to merit coverage here.  I suggest being a leader of a provisional government makes an individual notable.  Nominator asks:
 * Well, the Eastern Shura, of which Ezatullah was a leader, was at least briefly independent. The anti-Taliban leaders who formed the Eastern Shura could have joined with the Northern Alliance.  They chose not to, giving them an independent voice at the Bonn Conference that chose Hamid Karzai as leader of the Afghan Transitional Authority.  That would make him a leader at the National level -- clearly qualifying for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN.


 * Comment -- Ezatullah is a very common name in Afghanistan. Our disambiguation page, Ezatullah, currently list half a dozen individuals named Ezatullah.  The standards for disambiguation pages are that they are not supposed to contain references.  These individuals are all easily confused, if we don't have articles about each of them, with references that allow us to distinguish between them.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator may have confused the Ezatullah from Nangarhar with the Ezatullah appointed to a position in Sangin -- hundreds of miles away. They might be the same guy -- but that would be unsupported speculation.  We have zero indication that they are the same individual, except that they share a very common name.  Deletion of brief, neutral, factual articles like this one, are a disservice to the wikipedia project, because they guarantee later confusion.  When additional notable references to an Ezatullah in Afghanistan come to light it guarantees that whoever wants to include that information has to repeat the same hours of research that have already been performed, to figure out which Ezatullah those references refer to.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Please do not put words into my mouth; I never suggested that anyone has to be famous in order to merit coverage. Accusing me of such shallow and trite thinking is an uncalled for insult and distracts from the issues at hand. In quoting me, my suggestion that "in which case the information here should be merged into another more detailed article. It cannot stand alone as an article" was left out, thus giving more credence to the above interpretation what I may be "suggesting". Taken together, I am suggesting that WP:POLITICIAN as a policy does not automatically override the policy guidelines at WP:N, it merely suggests that the material should be on Wikipedia in some fashion. There are many subjects on Wikipedia that are notable, but do not have their own article; for a long time The Angry Video Game Nerd was deemed notable enough only to have a section about him in ScrewAttack. Later, when more sources came out, he was given his own article. You have suggested that he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN, fine. But why not merge this into some other article, delete this redirect as it is a highly unlikely search term and create a link to the section from the Ezatullah page. If all that were to be agreed upon, then I would obviously withdraw the nom. At the moment, however, I feel that it is appropriate to boldy draw some attention to this issue by suggesting that this individual article be deleted. There is simply no evidence of enough sources to support a full, neutral article here. I also view the "is it the same guy" question as an irrelevant distraction but, if anyone disagrees, they may view my response to this on my talk page, as I see no reason to further discussion on that subject here. Cheers, CP 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to subsection? -- Nominator asks why not merge this material into another article, and change the disambiguation page (Ezatullah), to point to the subsection heading of the target of the merge where this material had been shoehorned. Why not?  Because redirection to subsection heading is deeply broken.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral I think systemic bias may be an issue here; see WP:BIAS. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, this google search gives no results. --Soman (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Seems i misspelled, is probably more correct. --Soman (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably notable, given the leadership role specified by the NYT. (I don't see the POV problem--whatever one thinks of his activities, the NYT is a reliable source for his role.) We should be able to write a better article except for cultural bias in searching and the name problem. Although it might seem that a combination article would do, it is probably simpler and less confusing to give each person their own main article.DGG (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (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.