Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Hasan (writer)

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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Hasan (writer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, lack of secondary references. Newusers112 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability. And my searches have been fruitless, even when I used the quite unique name of his university - Patna - as a keyword along with his name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was recently moved from userspace to main space by an editor SwisterTwister, who regularly moves large numbers of articles into main space far too rapidly to have evaluated them, and that, in this particular case, the article was moved although it had been recently rejected by a fellow editor for lack of reliable, secondary sources, which were not provided before SwisterTwister approved it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with this editor that has been repeatedly discussed, but nothing is ever done about such obviously disruptive behaviour. The tendency to allow such editors to continue when their judgement is no better than random is one of the reasons why I decided several years ago not to use a registered id for editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the initial draft which was rejected and the draft which got approved are 2 completely different stories. the later is properly sourced, and the references are provided for almost every sentence and is 95 percent without any primary sources unlike the first draft which had almost no references.

Secondly, instead of searching google for the same we can check those references. the reason I don't suggest google search of his name is because the name of the subject is very common and mostly spelled differently and in other languages as well and would mostly be fruitless as countless other people who are prominent are there by his name, wiki itself has 9 people by his name. just because google can't figure it out, doesn't mean the person is not notable. to be in a notable personality according to wiki policy is

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. which he did and is properly sourced by secondary sources.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

the article has secondary sources of his books and awards which itself is a proof of his prominence. if still the secondary references aren't enough for the community to get this approved, I am sure I can add other references as well.Sfaafsar (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting I revisited the sources. they are primary; or prizes given by the Ministry he works for - no evidence brought of notability of these prizes; he may be name-checked somewhere in source #6; #7 lists him among student scholarship recipients (hey! I had a scholarship when I was a student, too); #8 did not bring his name up, so I tyoed it into the search box that did come up and got this [1], I don't read Urdu; #9 is the only usable source, a book review in an academic journal of a book that he edited. This does not suffice. #10 is a library catalogue listing, but publishing a book is not suffice. The book has to be reviewed/written up in a RS. I deny the allegation that I was unaware that the page had been revised before SwisterTwister approved it for mainspace. I do not accuse fellow editors of carelessness lightly. The problem I could see then and still see now is that the sources are not valid. (unless RS can be brought) This article should not have been approved for mainspace. And should not be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question By chance can anyone identify a companion entry in any other language that might further inform us? I feel like I don't have the language skills or the context necessary to assess; it's not at all implausible to me that either some of these awards or even being a chair of a department is enough for WP:PROF (and what's more, I'd hate to see us lose an entry if it were about a notable, pre-internet-era Indian scholar of Persian literature, which could be a very useful contribution indeed), but I don't know nearly enough about the awards, the university, etc. to say, and I agree with E.M. Gregory that I'm not seeing the secondary sources for WP:BASIC. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better if this article had been left in userspace and discussed properly there rather than being moved prematurely to mainspace where it becomes subject to this adversarial process. It is quite possible that the subject, as a university head of department, is notable, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we have sufficient evidence to decide, and I think it would not be a good idea to delete, because someone in this position is likely to be notable . (And I do not se the point of keeping it in userspace where nobody who has the necessary background is likely to see it or work on it. The place where articles get improved is mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the notability DGG is seeing. The claims made on the page are a small number of publications and a teaching job at a university. Many academics are not notable; many full professors are not notable. If it turns out that this one, is, we can recreate the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for saying that this would have been better left in user space was that while the "articles for creation" process was still going on there would have been a better opportunity to ask the article creator, who is probably better placed that most of us to do so, to find better sources. Now that the article is undergoing the adversarial AfD process, which, like it or not, is a battleground, it is less likely that we will get friendly cooperation to improve the chances of keeping and improving it. We are where we are, so I certainly wouldn't advocate returning it to user space. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wavered on this, because I share DGG's view about the likely notability of the subject, and that keeping it in mainspace is the best way to encourage the needed work on it--but I'm also wary about an entry that has limited sources, a variety of language challenges (such as the numerous different transliterations of the subject's name, plus a different scholar in the same field with a virtually-matching name), and essentially only one editor currently working to interpret those, with that editor being quite new to Wikipedia and still learning the intricacies of how WP uses sources (as am I for that matter). That could add up to an entry that diverges from WP:WHYN's important guidance that multiple secondary sources are necessary "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." Being certain of not misleading readers about something like the neutrality of an article is a higher priority to me than growing the encyclopedia. But after consideration, I believe the entry's claims (in the present draft--the previous one was a different story) are sufficiently limited that the clean-up tags suffice to warn readers about what may be the entry's present limitations; it does not need to be deleted to protect readers, and keeping it may encourage expansion of a valuable resource. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.