Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mubashar Khurshid


 * 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. I'm sorry 90.198.200.109 but the consensus is clear on this one. The subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mubashar Khurshid

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This talented English poet and philosopher is probably not famous enough at this stage to be the main topic of an encyclopedia article Teofilo talk  00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (relisted on this AFD page by Ashershow1talk • contribs 20:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any reason to keep this. The article states he was "invited to seminars in Brussels, Belgium and Paris, France", which might indicate at least some relevance, but I couldn't find any sources for that. Plus, the two references in the article are pretty much useless, since one is about a school that doesn't even have the guy's name anywhere around, and the other one is to a free site he made which is full of "Insert content here" tags all around. A quick Google search also doesn't indicate the existence of "Who Am I Publications". Even if this article was relevant (and content was real) it would be guilty of original research. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻  (talk)  04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Weak sources, fails WP:GNG. &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Despite the interesting subject matter, there is no indication of proper notability. Possibly an inclusion in the future. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 19:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding comment from talk page of article - I find the decision to delete this page absolutely bizarre, unfair and a clear mark on injustice. This page was created with a lot of effort, and is clear and blatant disrespect towards the subject. I believe Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia, the one where the public edits? Well it hardly will be if you have people who believe they are superior to you, running around, deleting pages of hard work and effort. I have been using Wikipedia for four years now, and never have had to encounter such rude and ignorant behavior. --90.198.200.109 (talk)


 * Protest - Please read my above statement as I am extremely determined to keep this article on Wikipedia. Like I have mentioned before, this is a complete insult. I would like a response as I am adamant on keeping this page. 90.198.200.109 —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC).

I suggest you try reading these three topics ( WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:BIO ) and then maybe this great one before continuing the discussion. If there is anything you still don't understand, feel free to ask us. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B;  (talk)  21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to clarify something to the author: Wikipedia has rules. Nobody here is trying to delete your article on ignorance or pride. First, Wikipedia does not accept Original Research. The goal of this project is to build a database which is based on reliable facts from verifiable sources, which your article clearly lacks. Second, Wikipedia is not a means of self-promotion or advertising in any forms, which may be the case here. Third, Wikipedia can't contain everything. For the inclusion of an article in Wikipedia, it must meet some criteria of notability that just doesn't apply to your article right now.
 * I don't mean to be a dick, but 90.198.200.109 has not been here for 4 years. Your contribs show a minimal amount of editing experience, and a few sporadic months of work at most.  Also, keep in mind that while you may have put some effort into this article, it in no way implies page ownership and certainly does not require us to keep the article alive if its notability is in question.  Always remember that writing on WP means putting your work into the hands of merciless editors. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete- No reliable sources. Though this fellow may achieve notability in the future, he's not ripe for inclusion in an encyclopedia just yet. Article fails to assert any importance other than "he's a neat guy."  I'm sure he is a neat guy, but that's not what we need here.  Could be deleted under WP:SPEEDY-A3. OfficeGirl (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- @Ashershow How do you know I haven't been here for four years? So you can delete the article and then feel the right you have to question how long I've been here? Don't tell me what I've done or haven't done. Just because you're deleting my article doesn't give you control over what my contributions and accomplishments. So before things come out of of your mouth, think of something constructive to say rather than a load of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.200.109 (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. You haven't been editing WP for four years, and I can tell by checking your contributions list.  In addition, your amateurish way of handling a community discussion about your work tells me definitively that you have not been here for 4 years.  And I'm not taking "control" over your accomplishments, everyone here is simply trying to create a better encyclopedia and we can't do that without some reasonable guidelines for article notability.  You've taken this whole thing way too personally. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 17:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- @Ashershow I've been using my other Wikipedia account for my old contributions. Anyway, if my way of handling a community discussion is so amateurish, why are you sitting here disputing what I've done when you're meant to be commenting on whether this article should be deleted or not? Going back to the subject, I am willing to make a few tweaks and edits to the page to make it stay on. This has been worked hard on and I can change some text or content for the sake of the relevant article to remain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.189.245 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if you've felt personally victimized by this discussion as I don't mean to be a dick. However, I believe your feelings of page ownership are inhibiting you from making a rational decision about this article.  The problem is not with changing some text or adding some content-- it is with the fundamental notability of Mubashar Khurshid.  There are no reliable third-party sources to merit his inclusion in Wikipedia at this time.  I encourage you to read WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability in order to better understand this position.  While it may seem cold, the amount of effort you put into the article does not weigh into its notability.  Since Wikipedia is the largest group project in human history, it is important not to take anything too personally.  Your adamant reaction to this AFD discussion has led me to believe that your ego is getting involved; at the very least you are not a four-year veteran editor.  As this discussion is clearly heading towards deletion, if you have any more questions or concerns about Wikipedia or its standards for notability, please leave them at my talk page. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 05:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we've taken a wrong turn somewhere here, especially in judging people. I'd like to point that the author's previous contributions to WP do not matter for this in any way. This discussion is becoming really violent (from both sides), so I ask you all to calm down. (Edit: And yeah, I notice I've been pretty cold here as well - sorry, not intended). Author, like I said before, we're not trying to delete your article based on ignorance, pride or anything. We're trying to delete it because Wikipedia has rules, and your article does not seem to meet them. These rules are clearly stated here and here. If you can prove to us that your article meets those rules, it can continue to exist. Simple as that. &#x0F3A; gabrielkfl &#x0F3B; [talk]  05:27, 6 March 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.