Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi


 * 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. The problems identified by the nominator and Rankiri (inaccessibel and/or poor references) have not been successfully addressed. The content can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability of this subject is not at all clear from the article. Language is largely promotional and there are no solid claims to notability beyond a book of is poems being published and a vague mention of a biography written about the subject of this article but there are no verifiable references included.

There is a numbered section that appears to be an attempt at references but verifiability is not clear with most of them. The 2 that do include external links are to a message board and a simple reprint of a short poem. RadioFan (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've improved the formatting a little just to make it easier to follow, but it needs a lot more - I obviously won't fix up the formatting any further unless it survives this AfD -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The author has responded on the article's Talk page, Talk:Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi, which should be taken into account when closing - I've replied there and pointed him here -- Boing!   said Zebedee  15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Author's response is continuing at the article's talk page, says they're "not computer intelligent", so need to keep up with the discussion there before closing -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep I came late to this AfD, so I'd appreciate it if it could at least be rolled over for another week. The author has asked for help in improving the article, and I'd like to try to assist by searching for notability and sources, but I'm too busy right now to do so immediately -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Weak delete. Most of the references are inaccessible or even unverifiable: ,. The ones that are available online only seem to contain unclear trivial mentions:,. Google returns very few results, mainly from unreliable blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. The article itself is a mess. It's incoherent, promotional in tone, and has a number of problems with NPOV, V, OR, ENGLISH, and NOT: "an astrologer of exceptional quality who had made several astounding predictions", "the inherent poet in Zia Fatehabadi surfaced quite prominently", "one hears his voice ringing loud and clear", "very few people are aware of his deep interest in the study of the Upanishads", etc. Questionable statements like ''"This book invited criticism from . . . his own college-mate whom he trusted immensely. He then felt very sad and lamented thus . . ." and "He was not a professional poet and also as already said he did not seek fame or recognition"'' make me doubt the truthfulness of the entire article. Even though it's possible that the subject can pass WP:AUTHOR, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch and followed by at least one verifiable WP:RS source. I recommend incubation or userfication. — Rankiri (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article survives the AfD process with respect to WP:N and WP:RS (which I appreciate might be difficult, as I don't expect there to be many online English-language references for a deceased Urdu poet), I'm prepared to copy-edit it to bring it in line with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, which I expect would shorten it quite a bit - though I don't really want to spend much time on it unless I can be reasonably confident of its survival first. Oh, and as was suggested on the article's Talk page, there is a tradition in India to write about admired historical figures in extremely reverential tones. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have watched this article develop as and when the author has gradually tried to remove the stated anamolies. There may not be sufficient material on the net to establish in toto i.e. in accordance with Wiki's requirement,the subject's notability but what is there can not be set aside simply because that which is there available in print is not easily accessible.It is for a researcher to take the cue from an encyclopedia to work on a particular hypothesis to construct a thesis relating to a note-worthy person or event, this is where Wiki assists.The importance of this subject is evident.The external links refered to by Mr.RadioFan are not unreliable, they establish the existence of the subject as someone note-worthy, moreover, two couplets written by the subject have been cited to explain the use and meaning of two Urdu words and now made part of a Lafz Archive/Urdu dictionary-see-http://www.bazm.urduanjuman.com/index.php?topic=615.0 http://www.urdupoetry.com/lafz/lafz115.html and http://www.urdupoetry.com/lafz/lafz303.html  These references are not simple reprints of a small poem.The Afd tag ought to be re-looked.I am to request the editors to copy-edit this article if need be so that it can be kept on this page itself.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (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.