Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeem Hashmi (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. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adeem Hashmi

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

The article on this poet has been tagged for zero refs for nearly a year. I cannot find substantial RS coverage; others are welcome to try. Also tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the previous AfD, there are claims which, if verified, would demonstrate notability (e.g. controversies, popularity of songs, commemorative naming of a road in Rawalpindi); Google Books does show a couple of English language snippets, but it really needs someone with a knowledge of Pakistan and its culture to verify or not. AllyD (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see that the previous Afd's 2 keep !votes were based on "... but if they [claims that need referenced] can be supported the subject would be notable", but they were never supported per wp's policy of wp:verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per above.Drjames1 (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per reasons given above, I think the article needs some edits by an experienced editor and will be fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adeem Hashmi is notable enough for inclusion via the numerous sources given, the article just needs Wikified. Also, I support the reasons to keep, posted above by the previous users. John Cengiz talk 05:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You base your keep position on "the numerous sources given". However, the article has zero refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best part of a week has elapsed and despite my hopes nobody has come in with information on this poet. That seems to stand in stark contrast with the claims in the article. I've tried various searches and come up with nothing (other than references to Alamgir Hashmi, a different poet). So reluctantly, I don't see how this article can be sustained in present form - obviously while allowing for a future, well-referenced article in its place. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, longterm unsourced biography. If someone can come up with some refs I'll be first to support restoring the article, but in the meantime it really is irresponsible to leave the article visible in its current state. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The sources are either present or they are not. As the article has remained largely unsourced for over a year, I think it unlikely they can be found. A more than generous amount of time has elapsed for the article to be improved and notability established. Pol430 talk to me 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2012 (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.