Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Shahabuddin

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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shahabuddin

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

Does not comply with notability guidelines per WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:PROF. E4024 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first thing I would like to address is that WP:PROF and WP:DIPLOMAT are both notability guidelines, not requirements, this really disregards any arguments using these guidelines since this proves this article isn't in any way violating WP required policy.

If it is to be accepted that these guidelines are in fact requirements I would like to address this article in relation to the WP:DIPLOMAT guideline second. The guideline states that 'Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required.', I have since added the appropriate reference to clarify where the information about Syed Shahabuddin's involvement in the Shah Bano case and his opposition to the Demolition of Babri Masjid. As everyone can see the reference for this opinion is valid, it is from his own website, but isn't from a 'reliable secondary source' this therefore removes any requirement for 'sufficient reliable documentation'. I have mentioned these two cases because I assume they are what the nominator is talking about. Really these aren't even diplomatic events since they were internal crisis within India. There is no indication in the article that Shahabuddin has 'participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance'. Perhaps if the nominator knows of such events he could add them to the article - this would be much more constructive.

Now I will thirdly address the point raised regarding WP:PROF. I have since removed the text describing Shahabuddin as a 'university teacher' since although his website says he was, I can't find any information anywhere else that backs this up . This removes the relevance of WP:PROF.

Finally I would like address this deletion in general. I have quickly looked at the contributions of E4024 and have noticed that this editor has only recently returned to WP after a period of about nine months. While I am in no way questioning this editors knowledge of WP policies, I would suggest that he/she may be a little to eager too make major edits or start processes such as deletion. I am assuming that this deletion was made in good faith but if this editor reads the article I think he/she will find it is a good article and deleting it would be a negative thing for WP. The editor may also like to know that this article was requested officially on WP and has been created due to this request. It is highly demoralizing for myself, and I'm sure many other editors, to create a requested article after extensive research, write it and rewrite it, add structure and references etc. for a fellow editor to then nominate it for deletion. Of course I agree that unsuitable, inappropriate or articles that break WP policy should be deleted but I can't help but feel the reasons for this nomination are minor and actually non-existent. Josh1024 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Josh1024 Since when are you in WP Josh? BTW I saw a note on your TP about you and WP deletion procedure, I mean before you archived it. Best. --E4024 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To E4024 As you can see I have crossed through my comments about you personally in case they have offended you, to be honest I don't understand what your message above means and I can't tell if your being sarcastic or whatever. I have no intention of making a big deal out of this. I wasn't trying to hide anything on my TP there are links to the archives and I will archive my talk page every so often as many people on WP do. This part of WP is for discussion about the proposed deletion of this article, if you want to discuss something further with me please do so on my TP. Thanks, Josh1024 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Parliament of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sources from the National Informatics Centre state that Shahabuddin was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1979 to 1984 [1] (bottom of the 12th page) and the Lok Sabha from 1985 to 1996 [2]. Funny ^Pika! 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FunnyPika. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former Member of Parliament. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2013 (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.