Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasser Latif Hamdani (2nd nomination)

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 closing this sock-infested discussion as delete because the article gives no credible indication of significance as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Passing mentions in newspaper articles, or even giving a NYT reporter a lift, don't make a subject independently notable. Hamdani's book, while certainly a respectable publication, does not satisfy the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Latif Hamdani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Yasser was qouted as lawyer in the provided sources which doesn't makes him notable. The sources are not written on subject, but on cases he was defending. Saqib (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG, This page was recreated after you deleted it previously. Should it be speedy deleted? --Saqib (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The last afd was in 2010, where I said "not yet notable" . He wrote a book since then, and I verified with WorldCat and added the info. (The book is not in many US libraries, but that may or may nor be relevant). Other material in the article is also about his work in the last few years. So whether or not he's notable now, he's not as non-notable as in 2010, so it needs a new afd . DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I don't think being author of a non-notable book makes the person notable. --Saqib (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was, just that it needed a new afd because of the information. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I wonder whether we allow comments on deletion nominated of the subject himself? In this case, the subject is defending this deletion nomination. --Saqib (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without secondary sourcing discussing the subject's work, this fails the GNG. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) That is the point. The sources are discussing his work and him.Egopearl (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The secondary sources discuss the subject's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.83.84.127 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should stay. The editor Saqib clearly has a personal animus against the subject as is patently obvious from the malicious and disruptive nature of edits made by Saqib on the subject's page. Given that this page is subject to edit wars by the editor Saqib, it must be locked immediately and kept. 101.50.80.212 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)— 101.50.80.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Delete -Created by a SPA around two years ago and maintained by many similar IPs since then, subject lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources and doesn't meet BIO and GNG standard. There are only few short/passing mentions in two or three newspaper. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources were removed by Saqib. They have been added. 42.83.84.218 (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep YLH, as he is generally known, is an increasingly prominent lawyer fighting on several newsworthy and historical cases. To say that that he is the Alan Dershowitz of what is sometimes referred to as the "The Most Dangerous Country in the World" is not stretching a point. My personal criteria for an "article of encyclopedic interest" is this: News stories on quite a few topics from such a critical country hit the New York Times front page on a regular basis. At that point, journalists, scholars and news consumers people go looking for historical background, and the first place they look is the Wikipedia. When that happens, will Wikipedia have the necessary information on the context, personalities, and events? And this criteria YLH definitely meets.

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am not an SPA. I am a Wikipedia contributor with a record going back to 2004

Please be note that being being "famous" or "popular" is not sufficient here. The subject clearly fails the basic notability criteria so how does he merit an entry on Wikipedia. Other than that, the subject has been editing his own bio page using IP addresses which is strongly discouraged. On a similar note, he's attacking me off-wiki and making false allegations which is very uncivil. My contribution record shows that I made no edit to any page he claims. 1, 2, 3. --Saqib (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I did not say he was popular or famous. The criteria I am invoking is the one given at Wikipedia:Notability; namely that

a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources

and further under Wikipedia:Notability (people) as:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I agree with you. But as far I can see, the subject is only quoted in news articles which doesn't makes him notable enought to warrant bio page. I've been myself qouted in numerous press stories but thats definately not make me notable either. We need references talking on the subject to backup a standalone biography page. --Saqib (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider the New Yorker (not exactly a local or un-notable source) saying the following as "'talking on the subject'":

"Hamdani has a growing reputation within Pakistan’s small, liberal-minded “civil society” for his strident advocacy of the claim that the country’s founders envisioned a secular state."

— http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/banistan-why-is-youtube-still-blocked-in-pakistan

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Trivial mentions. On the other side. It is a blog entry. --Saqib (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unless provided further references (even local) to satisfy WP:GNG, this doesn't appear notable to me. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider the New Yorker (not exactly a local or un-notable source) saying this about the subject as being notable:

"Hamdani has a growing reputation within Pakistan’s small, liberal-minded “civil society” for his strident advocacy of the claim that the country’s founders envisioned a secular state."

— http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/banistan-why-is-youtube-still-blocked-in-pakistan

— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a not enough sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. I also think the closer of this discussion would be experienced enough to know that. You can add more sources during this discussion to change that and I'm willing to change my !vote given the article would not just remain a stub with a few references about news occurrences (we've to differentiate news content from encyclopedic content). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

iFaqeer and User:TopGun: I can see Yaser added new paragraphs (original research) and backing up those claims/text with some new references but all the references are Trivial mentions. None of the source is explictly talking about the subject, rather the cases. I'm going to remove all the original research as well the references that are unacceptable because they're either not reliable or not indepedent. Further, please be note that the New Yorker entry talking about the subject is a blog. --Saqib (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib: You have removed at least three sources which were directly on the subject and his views on partition. For example this one http://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/26-Jul-2012/view-in-defence-of-dr-ishtiaq-ahmed-shakil-chaudhry (you say that this source only speaks of his credentials as a lawyer) Is it some sort of insecurity? Your hissy fits and your insistence on deleting information self evident, like the fact that the subject was the lawyer in the famous YouTube case or the Finfisher case shows that you are personally prejudiced and biased against the subject. Are you saying that the sources don't show that he was a lawyer in these matters? Please check your prejudices at the door sir. Is the fact that his opinion as Asia 21 leader not worth something? How is the fact that he appeared in the YouTube case and the same was reported by media worldwide "original research". Perhaps your English Language comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. 42.83.84.218 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr. Yasser: I don't know you personally do there's nothing personal here. Please acknowledge that you're not worthy to have an entry on Wikipedia so why bothering? You're professional so don't act like an immature. Don't take it personal and become emotional. I know you're defending famous YouTube case but that doesn't make you notable. I humbly request you to please avoid personal attacks. Also, I'm not supposed to reply you since you're violating WP bolicy on conflict of interest. Anyways. Please be sure you cannot game the system just by presenting few trival references. --Saqib (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the original research text and unacceptable/unreliable/non-indepedent references. All the references presently provided are trival. In my opinion New Yorker will have to go as well as it is a blog entry. --Saqib (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL what does one say to this. 42.83.84.218 (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Keep Added new sources all of which directly speak of the subject and his work. Please note that user Saqib is repeatedly changing the page to remove references and sources. 42.83.84.218 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC) Updated the links 42.83.84.218 (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC) — 42.83.84.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• This IP now blocked, and a bunch of their contributions removed. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will have to spend time working on this article. TopGun, if you really do have an open mind, go back and see the edits. This article is a very short stub main because everything that has been added over time has been removed rather than brought up to Wikipedia's requirements.— iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Not sure what User:Topgun is saying but all the sources speak directly of YLH's work. Edit summary of the page shows it was vandalized by User:Saqib who reduced it to a stub. The page should be kept because of three reasons: YLH writes regularly for Pakistani newspapers. He is the lawyer in civil rights causes such as free speech. He has written a book which is available in many libraries around the world. Egopearl (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC) PS: Put in more sources dealing directly with YLH's work. None of them are trivial and as this AFD proceeds, I would request that no one removes them. Egopearl (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC) My contributions are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Egopearl Please see before adding a WP:SPA. Egopearl (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Egopearl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That comment would have no weight, as we need to discuss whether enough sources write about him, not that he is (possibly) an author of RS which wouldn't make him automatically notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:TopGun I don't think you have read the sources then. There are about 13 sources on there that speak directly of him or his work. Some of the sources removed by Saqib also were articles on YLH. So when you say "the comment would have no weight" you need to elaborate: How are sources that speak directly of the subject and his work not notable? Sorry but I think something is amiss here.Egopearl (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the sources, but your comment was pointing out something else to which I replied. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? Are the sources not speaking of his work? So many examples have been quoted. Egopearl (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an SPA. I have been on Wikipedia for 8 years. My contributions are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EgopearlEgopearl (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have few contributions from 5 years ago. That still makes you an SPA. Please do not remove the tag and let the closing admin judge. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributions dating back to 2007 on a number of subjects and they are not few. I may not have used Wikipedia recently but that doesn't mean I am an SPA any more than you are. Please do not skew the debate by questioning good faith.Egopearl (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2015 (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.