Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shayan Anique Akhtar


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Shayan Anique Akhtar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Courtesy/procedural nomination. Complicated situation. Originally looks to have been a vanity page on a person involved in a bit of a minor scandal in Pakastan. Within minutes hours, details of the scandal were added to the article. The article's creator has since tried a number of ways to get it deleted, ending up with adding an AFD notice to the page, but not building out this AFD debate page itself. I'm doing so for him. The page creator will need to give their own reasons for deletion, but the main reason I can see would be the question of whether or not the subject actually meets notability requirements. Note that the BLP aspects of the negative information are also being looked at, as I have filed a report at WP:BLPN. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I want this article to be deleted because It is based on me and I created this on Wikipedia as my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs)


 * As the person who declined the G7 and suggested AfD, I think I should mention BLP and Deletion policy, if there aren't any real compelling reasons to keep the article. I myself would lean towards deleting per Shayan's request, with the understanding that he should not recreate it, and if it is recreated (or not deleted in the first place), he does not get control over its content, as long as it's supported by sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please delete this article it is based on my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs)


 * Keep The article was created as a self-promotional vanity page. Personally, I would at that stage happily have deleted it as promotional. However, other editors moved in and added content, including providing evidence that the author/subject of the article was all that he claimed to be. The author then decided to have it deleted. The fact that the author of the self-promotional article is unhappy that his attempt to abuse Wikipedia to spread his propaganda has backfired is not a valid reason for deletion. It is quite simple: if you don't want the negative aspects of your activities published on Wikipedia, then don't create a promotional article about yourself here. The subject certainly satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as there is a huge amount of coverage in reliable sources. All of that coverage is a direct result of the subject's spreading propaganda about wonderful things he claimed top have done, but however it came about, he has received far more than enough media attention to qualify for an article. His disappointment on finding that he doesn't own the Wikipedia article he created, and cannot make sure that it remains as a dishonest piece of self-promotion, is not a valid reason for deletion.


 * With reference to Writ Keeper's comments, the first link he gives is merely a quote from the second, which says link at "Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects" says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." (Italics in the original.) How unknown is "relatively unknown"? He has received very substantial amounts of media coverage, including in The Times of India, India.com, JWorldTimes, ZeeNews, Awaztoday, Zimbio, www.columnpk.com, propakistani.pk, etc etc. Whether there will turn out to be a "rough consensus" remains to be seen, of course. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course; I wasn't suggesting that those policies require us to delete it; hence the AfD. I was just suggesting that, unless someone has a reason to keep it (and they might!), I don't see the harm in deleting it, in accord with the subject's wishes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. We don't have control of other articles of people that perform certain actions to get attention. This one we do have some measure of control over. If I wrote a fictitous entry about me in IMBD, Then created a wikipedia article on it and the media reported the hoax, would that article be deleted?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I created same article on me some months ago which got deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shayan_Anique Now why this article is not removed that I written on me with my full name "Shayan Anique Akhtar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan Anique (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous article was at Shayan Anique. The key differences that I see is that noone protested the G7 speedy deletion that previous time.  Both times had other people editing after you, so the G7 was possibly invalid in the previous instance as well.  You got it deleted in both cases when you blanked the page.  But this time one of the other editors protested, and that led to a closer examination of the history, and the realization that you were not the only significant contributor to the article.  And once that had been pointed out to me, I realized that my G7 speedy deletion was not valid.  "Speedy deletion" is intended for very, very narrow circumstances.  If the circumstances are not met, then speedy deletion is invalid.  G7 is mostly intended for the removal of mistakenly created pages.  It says that articles where the original *and only significant* contributor either requests deletion or blanks the article may be speedy deleted.  However, you were not the only significant contributor, and once this was pointed out to me, I had to reverse my speedy deletion. The previous time there was also another editor who had edited the page, but their work was mostly formatting, categories, etc.  And they did not protest the G7 deletion.  - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply. As I proposed the article I made other contributed in it for deletion. Can it be deleted after further consideration? --Shayan Anique (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once you create the article you do not control it. As I mentioned, G7 deletion, speedy deletion where the original author wants it gone, is mostly intended for mistakenly created articles, and does not apply once there are other significant contributors.  You are no longer the only author of that page.  And the fact that the article is about you does not give you any special power over it.  There are other rules around the handling of negative content on biographies of living people, but it sounds like there may very well be good sourcing for the information on the scandal itself.  Which means that, if the article survives this deletion debate, it will likely continue to contain information on the scandal.  I'm sorry, but that's how it goes.  If the information is verifiable in Reliable, Independent sources, then it generally is appropriate for the article.
 * Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point of View. Among other things, this means that we generally present both sides of an issue.  In your case, if it is decided that you are notable by Wikipedia's standards, it looks like it will be in good part because of the scandal itself. Which means that there's no way Wikipedia could have an article on you without it covering the scandal as well.
 * One possible point for you, being at the center of the scandal, you likely are highly aware of what coverage is out there. If there is any Reliable, Independent sourcing that counters any of the scandal claims, and you could point us towards it, then that could be used in the article to counter the scandal information.  As I said, it's good to present both sides of an issue, assuming that both sides can be reliably sourced. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Notability is a little hard to determine. While the subject is not nearly as notable as Bill Gates, he seems to have attracted a good deal of coverage from the Eastern media, but the Western media has yet to take notice. So I'd say he's at least generally notable. --  Auric    talk  20:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my delete rationale above the notabilty is self-created. Do any of our policies on hoax articles cover hoax notabilty? I have seen hoax articles deleted even though they were covered by western media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it relates to the other people affected by the hoax. Most of the hoax articles have at least one already notable person or hoaxer attached. If Bill Gates decides to take notice and sue, this could pop up again (probably as a mention on Gate's page) and he would become more notable. This article probably won't survive until then, though.-- Auric    talk  22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Much as I enjoy seeing people who create puff pieces on themselves be hoisted by their own petards, the reality here is that what tenuous notability there is here is a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Bill Gates gives Shayan Anique Akhtar an island. We may have to delay the deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? Nothing about Shayan Anique Akhtar in the article, just Gates.-- Auric    talk  00:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - I'm the editor who asked TexasAndroid to undelete the blanked article. I first tagged it for notability/autobio while doing WP:NPP. After a couple of hours with no further edits, I was thinking of prodding it on notability, so did a Google search and found plenty of coverage, as there was a bit of a controversy to it. Coverage was substantial from Pakistan, India and USA, but only for a week or two, so as FreeRangeFrog notes above, this fails WP:BLP1E for a separate article. Yet it's at least notable enough for a merge to another article, though I'm not sure which: Microsoft Certified Professional, List of hoaxes, other? Altered Walter (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Microsoft Certified Professional would be huge if we listed even the notable ones and List of hoaxes doesn't allow non-notable ones that use red links and don't have viable articles according to the discussions in the archives of the talk page. Basically wp is not news.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is also not news: it's eight months old, so per WP:NOT it's not journalism. As for size, well "too much information" is not a problem for Wikipedia, though WP:EVENT and WP:WEIGHT can be. I can find only three of these "youngest MCP" hoaxes online, and only two seem to have significant coverage. A short paragraph mentioning them in Microsoft Certified Professional is certainly appropriate, and would add only a modest droplet to that Mighty Bucket O' Product Marketing. Altered Walter (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - falls under WP:BLP1E. The person is clearly not notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, FreeRangeFrog perfectly sums up my opinion. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Note that while my name is at the top as "submitter", it was mostly a technical submission on my part, and I did not express a strong Delete or Keep opinion there. I expressed a vague thought that notability might be at issue, but nothing more.  That said, the BLP1E arguments have convinced me.  The subject really does not have much, if any, lasting notability, and thus should not have an article here.  So I am now moving firmly into the Delete camp on this one. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a text-book case where a young person committed a hoax that attracted attention for a very limited amount of time. On these grounds delete under WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Mkdw talk 20:19, 30 January 2013 (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.