Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination)

Ehsan Sehgal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (4th nomination)

Ehsan Sehgal (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)

The more I look into this article the more I realize that Wikipedia is being misused for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination)) had substantial support towards delete but it was the ignorance of the nominator (relative of the subject) which outweighed and ruined all sensible arguments.

Years have elapsed, to date there are no results of the subject on Google news or Google books. Entirely fails WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So the first, second, and third Keep was wrong since as, No policy requires sources to be in English nor that they are available online; per WP:NEXIST their existence is sufficient. Consensus was that sufficient such sources exist to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I feel this BLP managed to avoid getting deleted in the previously deletion nominations due to the reason that BLP was very cluttered with unreliable sources and OR which gave the impression that the subject is notable. However, this time around I've managed to cleanup the BLP, remove OR as well all the unreliable references cited previously. And keeping in view of the current coverage, I can safely conclude that the subject fails to meet GNG as well WP:AUTHOR. I still see most of the coverage is either trivial or merely namecheking while the rest of the coverage discuss his non-notable work.

Also keeping in view of the fact that the subject has been writing his WP bio for a long time now for self-promotion purpose, there's a possibility that all the coverage currently cited in the BLP was produced on the behest of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect but Ehsan Sehgal seems very desperate for self-promotion. See what he has been doing at Conservapedia under the username of User:JusticeOfJustice (similar to his WP username Justice007 (talk · contribs). He created his bio on Conservapedia, Zarb-e-Sukhan on Conservapedia (was created on Wikipedia as Zarb-e-Sukhan and later as Zarb-e-Sukhan (Kulliyaat)), The Wise Way on Conservapedia (The Wise Way on Wikipedia), Muslim United Nations on Conservapedia (Muslim United Nations on Wikipedia), Breathing Words, The Writing That Fragrances, and The Prisoner Of The Hague. --Saqib (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Saqib: Can you speak to this source? Nole (chat·edits) 20:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolelover: It is an opinion piece written by a writer not affiliated with the source, in the form of an interview which make it fall under self-published content. --Saqib (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Speed Keep per Coverage in Rising Kashmir 1 , Express News (Pakistan) 2, Nawaiwaqt 3, Daily Jang 4. I believe there would be more. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Passing mentions in unreliable columns is far from meeting WP:GNG. Are you agreeing that an author from Nederlands is having no significant coverage, not even in Dutch publications? Orientls (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Pakistani Urdu language newspapers are nutrious for producing paid news stories, among sensationalism and non-factual content. I would never establish notability based on coverage in Urdu-language newspapers, solely. --Saqib (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know Dutch language sorry. However, I think, the subject is quite notable but we need more references. If it the case of paid stories/articles, that is problem everywhere, it is not only limited to Urdu. The newspapers I cited, mainly, Rising Kashmir, it isn't a Pakistani paper, rather it is an Indian paper based in Kashmir. I would not agree on this point. Still, we need more BLP sources and I'm trying my best to fix that. He is referred to as Urdu poet and journalist, and thus, we shall have to rely on Urdu sources, unless they ain't depreciated. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The coverage in Rising Kashmir is an opinion of some unknown writer from Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Crimson Comedian Talk 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete but Draftify: Going through the submissions history, I assume there is a COI issue. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - WP requires sources to discuss the subject in a neutral way, but when you read the sources attached with this article, it is clear they are promotional in nature and might be paid. The subject has a long history of promoting himself and from time to time nominate his own article for deletion (whenever someone objects his notability) and then withdraws it when it is about to delete. Same happened in previous nomination by his daughter. It fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. The article is a mess and should be deleted per WP:TNT. Störm (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. I would expect coverage from better sources about a person who spent more than 10 years in self-promotion than the unreliable sources mentioned above. Tessaracter (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

delete - as vote, not policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this IP is reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justice007. This is sock of Justice007 (talk · contribs) which is managed by Ehsan Sehgal. He's tactically made this deletion vote to mislead the people that this AfD is infested with deletion votes only and no policy based arguments. He's a history to do such tricks. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal (3nd nomination). --Saqib (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Saqib: fwiw, I'm unconvinced this is Ehsan based on what the IP is saying/linguistic patterns, but even if it is I think it's a bit over-the-top to refer to this as "tricks" and tactical decisions. If Ehsan is anything, he's never fully been able to understand the culture of WP despite trying his best to learn the rules, and can feel wronged by the relatively brusque way we all go about our business. No need to make this a bad faith thing. Nole (chat·edits) 17:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

For me amusing part is the way IPs have been throwing the archived links and sources in AfD's and in the talk pages over the years because they're all very similar in nature. Please see this, this, this, this, and this. And isn't that interesting this IP has voted delete here but the same IP on your talk page opposing the deletion of this page. Anyways, I apologies for going aggressive If it sounds like that. --Saqib (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your imagination amusing me as well, I copied and paste as those were posted - You only removed reliable sources to get the article deleted, edit history proves that.

• Keep Subject is notable. Good Urdu sources.— Hammad (Talk!) 14:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hammad, there is a issue that these sources don't discuss in detail and are of low-quality and probably paid by the subject. Are you familiar that this article has long history of paid editing and promotional content written by the subject himself? I think you should be detailed in your comment. Störm (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hammad: There's page called WP:AADD which says you've to explain and provide solid arguments why this BLP does meet WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

he got war medal from pak army, does he paid for that? - or it is minor than indian film awards? - anyhow delete it as you want, not as policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:89FB:EA86:2045:2220 (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An award which is itself is not notable enough, does not makes its recipient notable. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete COI issue.— Hammad (Talk!) 17:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hammad: Since you're admin on Urdu Wikipedia, could you please look at the same bio over there as well. The BLP on Urdu WP was heavenly done by IPs. --Saqib (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done [1]— Hammad (Talk!) 00:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hammad: do you mind expanding on your !vote here? Is your comment about COI in reference to the sourcing? I obviously cannot read Urdu but I'm curious what your thoughts are about some of the above sources that at least facially would seem to be reliable (biggest newspapers in Pakistan, etc). Nole (chat·edits) 04:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. I have analyzed every single source, available here in our article, on this facebook page and on his conservapedia article. I can say with complete certainty that he cannot pass AUTHOR guidelines. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You analyzed 31 sources, it is a great work and you seem unique honest here!!!!!!

Note for administrators: none of the delete votes executes Wikipedia rules since that article 3 time has passed the notability, there are now 31 most reliable sources that are cited in the article, which nominators removed that, claiming the article is not notable. It is a totally illegitimate move of nominators. All delete votes should be considered as just voting without defining rules and reading sources, not as consensus as policies. I do not think, admins are blind, they are here to enforce policies, not personal motives of anyone else. I do not know the subject as you do not know. Since third deletion, fortuna, explained as, this and Mar4d as this, it was edited also as talk page archieve by Lady and Drmies two admins as well. Further more - Overzealous deletion - Myths and facts about deletion as Myth: AfD is a vote. More "keeps" means it'll be kept, and more "deletes" means it'll be deleted. Fact: The numbers of keeps and deletes do not decide the outcome. Entries that are simply votes are dismissed. The comments that reference policies, guidelines, and essays and state why they call for inclusion or exclusion are actually those that will determine the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems these users User:MistyGraceWhite, User:Hammad, User:AaqibAnjum, User:Orientls, User:Saqib, User:Störm fall under Meatpuppetry characteristically, because of editing on many articles together, and comenting and awarding on talk pages. It is not coincidental that they all are here with selected decision delete without internet connections for conspiracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hilarious. I've never interacted with MistyGraceWhite, Hammad, AaqibAnjum, and Orientls. --Saqib (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Special:Contributions/2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 you caught me red handed right there. The cabal exists.

I am the one on the right...no your right

MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see this. I've never interacted with MistyGraceWhite, Orientls, Saqib and Störm - my contribution to any article started by Hammad does not pass under meat puppetry, because I had done this at his request on my talk page. Have a look at Special:MobileDiff/955745807, I do not find any article of his where I've contributed besides this. It definitely isn't meat puppetry. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You all just victimized the article that passes GNG and Notability, whereas, I glanced articles which you created most of those entirely fail GNG as this and professor of rules User:Störm similarly enjoying the project to create such kinds of articles trivial mentioned sources that completely fail GNG and come here to preach others the meaning of GNG - the article you blindly voted to delete, has been edited by the most experienced editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The way of convincing: Such private movements create clear doubts and something not as the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C00:1604:BB00:459B:2CED:129E:AAB0 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)