Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi


 * 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. Claims that notability was established were without any support or sufficiently rebutted. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Of the sources on the page, only one (The Daily News) has any more than a passing mention of Hameedi, and even that hardly consists of significant coverage. He might pass either criteria #1 or #4 of WP:AUTHOR in his native Pakistan, but I can't find any sources to verify that (some may be available in Urdu, however). It doesn't help that an IP-hopping editor with a clear COI keeps spamming the article talkpage and those of any editor involved in the article with useless additional "sources" (e.g., , ). Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC) please do not delete this page.this page is v help ful to research students also.This is a senoir most teacher's page.Please donot delete it. Whereas you should improve it soon.thanks.This article is very helpful to wikioedia kiving persons .Please donot delete it. Thanks!!!
 * delete if no further reliable sources are presented. The Dawn article is talking about Hameedi being honored by the Pakistan Children Writers Guild- a non notable organization that he founded. The "three awards " from this clipping are not any type of recognizable named award, they are just "certificates" from a government agency, and the source doesnt even say what the awards are recognizing him for. There is a blog from Dawn, but it has the big disclaimer on the bottom "The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group. " So there is nothing in the article nor in my searches that shows WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR has been met. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keepdear editors

Dear ! please do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi.It is the best page.All reliable sorces are here.Proff Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is very ill now a days.He will die to see the deleted page.Please save Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi.Some one is jelous to Mr Justice007 and you. Please protect Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Thanks ! Thanks!

Dear Friends pls do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi pls It is a good page to pay a tribute to a senior teacher. O.K friends! pls help me as seniors. Thanks Here is a fotograph of Mr Hameedi thnx --Hasbi syed (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC) preceding comments moved here from various talkpages on editor's behalf. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Keep per WP:notability, notability is visible. TariqMahmood09 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noted_children_writer_poet_educationalist_Hameedi.jpg
 * Delete - Cannot find significant coverage. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * umm, per WP:N notability would be visible through significant coverage by third party reliable sources. As discussed above, none of the coverage appears to actually be significant, reliable AND third party so you will need to explicate as to how WP:N is actually being met if you wish your opinion to be counted. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As Reliable sources states;
 * Keep: Per WP:ANYBIO  "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable" and Notability.

"In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

The daily news, a mainstream newspaper's journalist writes about the subject and academics tribute the subject as this, "Paying tribute to Mujeeb Zafar Hameedi's half a century services in promoting children's literature, Masood Ahmed Barkati, who himself a noted children's writer, said he (Mujeeb Zafar) devoted his all life in promoting children's literature in the country and exploring new worlds of children's writings."

The whole article is written and connected to the writings of the subject, directly or indirectly. It is written about him not by him, it is independent third party source, that is not one or two sentences, that is full passage covering and describing his work in scholarly way. In the policy there is no specification of the degree of the length. As the primary sources 1 and 2, the subject has received appreciation certificates (awards) from the Federal Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan and was nominated for Sitara-e-Imtiaz. In the wiki-rules, there is no any description about awards that should be from where?, and recognised by whom?. I am confused between rules of the "wikipedia'" and "personalpedia". As the policy, trivial sources can also establish the notability. Subject of the article indeed and of course is a notable in my view and understanting of the wiki-rules in the exact concept of the meaning.Justice007 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the WP:ANYBIO about awards requires 1) proof and 2) that the awards are "well-known and significant award or honor". All we have is essentially a press release that states he got "certificates" from the government. That is not "a well-known and significant award or honor".
 * and while the wikipedia article writing must be done by third parties, the sources must also be third party sources.
 * significant coverage and not merely trivial passing mentions of the subject is required in these reliable third party sources see WP:42 - we are lacking in the combination of _significant_ coverage in _reliable_ _third-party_ sources. The "significant coverage" is not in reliable sources, and the reliable sources dont have significant coverage.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well-known to whom?, to you or any nation, and please tell me the meaning and description of "significant coverage", and do not devote your time to refer WP:42 again and again, the source is in accordance to that.Justice007 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are too lazy to read the damn links, I am not going to waste my time copying and pasting them here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The main issue with the Daily News article is the lack of 'significant coverage - no-one's disputing that it meets WP:RS. All it says is that Hameedi spoke at a meeting of a group he founded, and that another member of the group said something nice about him. He's mentioned in literally two sentences, neither of which tells us much about him - and that's the best source in the article. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  02:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

--118.103.224.4 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) moved from talkpage on user's behalf by Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete I agree; I do not see the notability or significant coverage. --Jeronme (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete Although it seems Wieard deleting a children books writer page lack of sound references !! and Lacks notability Shrikanthv (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Please do not delete great scholor Proff Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's great article.Thanks editor ! :)
 * Delete sources cited don't demonstrate notability (none constitute significant coverage) and there doesn't seem to be anything better out there. Hut 8.5 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete

No deletion

You all are skilled editors.Never should delete a good article as Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi while you should always to improve twisted article,this skill is also known as editing and you know dear editing for wikipedia is not an easy job, u know :) Please improve and Bring to life Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi , a respectable teacher and senior citizen also! Thanks wiki editors :) --118.103.224.4 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Sheela :)


 * The problem is that the subject doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines. This concern cannot be addressed through editing - if the subject isn't notable then no amount of editing will change that. Hut 8.5 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability and verifiability concerns. Also, the persistence and apparent desperation of the IP editor (who even hit the Deletion Policy talk page with a rant) strongly suggests a WP:COI/spam issue as well. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Karachi-based IPs have spammed just about every page connected with this article; just take a look at the talkpage archive (or the talkpage history of any editor who's ever so much as added a semicolon to the article)... I'm assuming it's all the same guy, but I've never yet worked up the energy to put them all together in an SPI. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete Notability issues-maybe a move to another Wikipedia would help abolish the notability concerns. Kevin12xd... &#124; speak up &#124; take a peek &#124; email me 02:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I just performed a search for information on this author, in the Urdu language, which yielded a plethora of results. Because this author is notable, I would suggest we keep the article and add more reliable sources to support the statements within. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * while sources do not need to be in english, they DO need to be produced and not just be claimed to exist. can you point out these sources?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Urdu, but a Google search for the Urdu name of the subject given in the article doesn't look promising. There are only 40 hits, several of which are clearly unreliable forums, Facebook and Google Groups. There are also things like, which seems to be user-submitted content (and hence is unreliable), and , which briefly mentions his name in an article about a conference. Hut 8.5 14:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Well he's not very quotable - . I can see that there's one IP editor now spamming editors in panic, which doesn't suggest to me much in the way of validity. For notability reasons, it's a delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability cannot be established by all the embarrassing fawning that has landed on the article's talk pages, here, there and everywhere. I must be nuts to even post, because I absolutely do not want my talk page spammed. This frantic pleading for editors to improve the article is just misguided and desperate. Lost cause due to lack of proper sources. I'm sure he's deserving of this worship and adulation in certain circumstances, but we are an encyclopedia, not an iconic fan page.  Fylbecatulous   talk   18:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacking sources independent of the subject, as with any subject that is foreign based I would revise if we can show sources in that language that show the persons notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability unclear even after extensive discussion and ample opportunity.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

As I stated above in my Keep comment. First my plan was the article to be deleted, and again created by me but I have changed my mind. My respective editors could not search the sources but I do. Here are the two good reliable sources 1 2 that have significant coverage about the subject and established the notability. I hope this helps and other issues of the article should be fairly discussded, not the idea of the someone's general conclusion.Merry Christmas to everyone.Thanks and cheers.Justice007 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't evaluate the first source as it's in Urdu and the format doesn't allow any sort of machine translation, but the second one appears to be some sort of promotional material for two of his books. Hut 8.5 21:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "some sort of promotional material"??.What do you mean?. We are looking forward subject's notability not the author's review, what he writes and how he writes, and there is no any promotional content is added in the article from the source. Urdu source can be accessed by editors who know the Urdu language. Please be fair and neutral.Justice007 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't understand. If the source is promotional material for the subject's books then it isn't independent of the subject and doesn't establish notability. Nor am I criticising the other source for being in Urdu, I'm just noting that I can't evaluate it. Hut 8.5</b> 23:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand very well, in the article just two words "brilliantly" and "great sensitivity" are mentioned, are those promotional?. In that subject of area it is very normal words to appreciate someone's literary work, while level of the government, children's books and its authors are not encouraged. From the whole short article, you have penetrated those two words as not independent source of the subject. Please you try to understand fairness and do not search the skin of the hair, it might be considered "not good faith"?.Justice007 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The first source cannot be translated, so can't be used as a source unless a true and accurate version can be provided in English. As Hut says, the second is a very, very glowing review about books, but nothing about the notability or importance of the person. Nothing in those sources helps the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe our sources are required to be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that they can't be validated either. If the Urdu-only source is not reliable, how would anyone know? We would need it validated and confirmed. The language isn't a problem, the content may well be doktorb wordsdeeds 08:16, 26 December 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.