Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asadulla pasha

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. Although Wikicology provided some sources mentioning the subject, there is a consensus that those mentions are not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Asadulla pasha

Asadulla pasha (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)

This article looks heavy promotional and though some notability exists, no independent sources can support the claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with your assessment and it's good you contacted Fasiullah - it appears his native name ("اسد اللہ پاشا") is not spelled correctly as it brings 0 results. It seems he should have notability by the references, but I can't find enough sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Before I check in, some changes have been made to the profile to remove "promotional" content and additional sources were added. As I find myself still naive to wiki editing, surely need your help in making the profile reasonably useful for Wikipedians/general users. Please consider improving it, instead of simply deletingg. User:Fasiullah 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Certainly not notable in a golfing sense. Should not be added to WP:GOLF. See WP:NGOLF Nigej (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:BASIC. I found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Article describes the subject as a social worker and prominent lawyer, making claims that look not true. For example, both references, provided for the claim of settling the tax case of a titular Nizam of Hyderabad, do not mention the subject. This reference [1] does not mention the lawyer at all, while this reference [2] mentions lawyer by name P. Anwarulla Pasha. Hence, I do have a strong suspect, that asserting some notability in the golfing area, all other information in the article does not have any basis, hence being strongly promotional for the subject Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Polling is not a substitute for discussion and we are not conducting an election here. Secondly, none of the sources you provided above is relevant and they are not part of the ones I provided above. Lastly, editors are not allowed to vote "delete" or "keep" twice in an AfD. Please familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before you comment or engage in an argument at AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This was actually a bad copy/paste, since I wanted just to comment and to provide a relevant information to support my nomination for deletion. I replaced "delete" word to "comment" one. And again, back to the subject itself. All references, you've mentioned do not show any notability in any area, other then golf, while article clams another. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Added some more relevant citations to address your and other wiki editors' claims. Hope it helps. Thanks User:Fasiullah 12:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a bit confused now since it's clear that being captain of a golf club and winning a few unheard-of amateur (probably handicap) tournaments does not qualify for any sort of golfing notability, otherwise we'd be awash with such people. So, as I said above, if he's to be notable it must be in some other area. Nigej (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep as per User:Wikicology. With all of the following references here: 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 the article subject meets the notability requirement and achieves WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm even more confused now since references 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 only refer to him as captain of a golf club and, as noted above, does not confer anything like enough notability. 2 simply refers to him as an educationalist and in 5 he's attending a "bash". Honestly, to warrant a "keep" we need a lot lot more than that. Does every person who gets their name in the newspapers 8 times warrant a Wikipedia entry? Nigej (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:GNG tells us that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". GNG does not recommend a specific topic under which a subject of an articles should be covered. Subject of an article is notable, if it has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources and you cannot deny the fact that about 16 sources (to mention few) provide above by WordSeventeen and myself are unreliable. You cannot expect us to bring hundreds or thousand of sources to WP:AfD simply because we want to establish the notability of a subject and you shouldn't the article to read like "this article is notable because...." Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Your "16 sources" seem to be really 8 since the second 8 are simply a repeat of the first 8 given and 1 of which is attending a "bash". Whatever next. I still can't see the significant coverage you refer to. He's clearly involved in a number of number of worthy causes, I'm not doubting that. The question is, does that add up to enough. Nigej (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete To me, the sources only point to insignificant mentions or brief quotations in the context of a non-notable role within amateur golf. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The comment directly above is spot on. This is so poor and clearly skitters from topic to topic to try desperately to eke out some kind of notability. Don't look at Secunderabad Club to try to find out what kind of stature a presidency of that organization would confer, either. Brianhe (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I find this last comment unclear. One does find the Secunderabad Club described as representing "the elite" [3] and retaining "its exclusivity" [4]. Whether that means the golfing elite or the social elite or some other elite is irrelevant. James500 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Still no evidence that he's notable. My background is WP:GOLF and from that perspective he's nowhere close. Clearly involved in a lot of good causes but nothing specific to warrant an article here. Does the sum of the little bits of notability add up to enough? No. Nigej (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Media references are short and give no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Some additional citations and more information are added to make it verifiable. Learned members of Wiki are to decide, but I seek their help in improving it. Thanks User:Fasiullah 05:54, 29 May 2015 (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.