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. no predjudice to undeletion if non-trivial sources can be found Fritzpoll (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Bakshi[edit]

Non-notable poet. Claims notability but no sources are provided. Google only returns 7 results for "farooq bakshi", including this article. I've also checked the awards but none of them appear to be notable, and they don't provide a list of winners anyway. Laurent (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author dr farooq bakshi is a notable poet of urdu laguage in the indian state of Rajhasthan. he has immensely contributed towards the development of urdu language in the non-urdu speaking parts of india ,particularly rajasthan. his works are regularly published in all major urdu newspapers and magazines in India. Google doesnt return many results for his name because a lot of urdu newspapers and magazines in general do not maintain websites and the language itself is under represented on the web. the reason why google only returns 6 results for "farooq bakshi" is not because he is non notable but because indian scholars of urdu language are grossly under represented on the internet in general and of rajasthan in particular. also many news papers and journals of urdu in india do not maintain website where their works could be accesable. dr farooq is the poet who has left a lasting impression on the promotion of urdu language in rajasthan. One his awards is a Rajathan urdu academy award which is an annual award given for signifacant contribution towards development of urdu language. Rajathan urdu academy is body constituted by the state govt for managing affairs of urdu language. i will personally try to provide sources confirming his accomplishments. --218.248.32.114 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would tend to believe, however the problem here is that one of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If nobody can verify any of your claims then we may have a problem. To be honest, I'm not sure what's the policy in that case - a more experienced Wikpedian than me may be able to help, possibly on the help desk. Laurent (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The BBC is one of those sites that made lots of efforts to offer Urdu contents and news. Please can you check if you can find something releated to Dr. Farooq Bakshi on it? If so, please can you post the URL here? The url: http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/ Thanks. Laurent (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia must stand by it 'verifiability' policy, no argiung upon that. but the i wish to raise a bigger issue here. that whether mere non existence of online information upon a particular topic or a person would make it unnoteworthy?. whether prior existence of online information is a sine qua non for being considered "genuine"?. Are you willing to accept citations and refrences of books,journals and news papers which are not available online? the problem is that large parts of the developing world is still beyond internet where the primary source of information is still printed ! if wikipedia overlooks this problem then i belive its too "elitist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.244.42 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes we are willing to accept print/ non-online sources, as we should - at least in theory. In reality, sometimes you have to fight harder to get print-only sources accepted, but it should be done. Now the question is, can you add the sources you say exist to the article? LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User:Laurent1979 sent me a message on my talk page regarding the person in question. Just by googling the person in question's name, I was able to find two English language sources (see here). I am sure that there are more sources in Urdu and Hindi which I would recommend 220.225.244.42 to search for. I will work on improving the article later. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Anupam. The two sources are about the same event though and his name is only mentioned once (without more details) so I'm not sure that will be enough. For example, he doesn't allow us to verify his biography or that he is the president of Anjuman-e-Taraaqi Urdu. As mentioned by LadyofShalott, it would help if 220.225.244.42 could provide the references of the journals and newspapers he mentioned. Laurent (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles you provided are not from non-trivial sources. While I am not aware of this person or his influence, a google search of the subject's name (in quotation marks) brings up 9 results. Perhaps there is information in non-english sources that can be given to prove notability, but the translation necessary to make that information verifiable to English-speaking editors on the English wikipedia would take an overwhelming effort. At present, there is no way to verify any of the information on the page, and due to that alone, the article can not claim notability.Mrathel (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - English-language sources are not required for notability or verifiability. There are people on here who read Urdu and Hindi who should be capable of verifying any sources in those languages if they are provided. Of course, 220.x does need to provide them... LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment well i was more or less suggesting that if the sources were to be presented by someone with the capability of translating the information to the extent needed to verify notability, then it would be alright, but that information would have to be able to be verified by someone other than the contributer. I am not sure of the actual WP policy regarding other languages and was only making an educated guess as to how the process would work, but at present there are no primary or translated sources provided that can verify that the subject meets notability.Mrathel (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO in a verifiable way. A grand total of ZERO hits on Google Scholar, Google News, Google Books, and WorldCat. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. Otherwise we may fall into the trap of having to lower the standards of notability for lack of verifiable sources of notability for certain subjects. In my opinion, it is not good practice to justify a keep recommendation based on the assumption that sources of notability MAY or PROBABLY exist, for this or that subject, but are not currently available. As for their language, it certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- yes i will add those print resources , but ill require some time for that. as far as verifiability is concerned , the best person would be somebody related to urdu languange in rajathan.--220.225.244.42 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The best person for what? To provide a source? To do translations? Ladyof Shalott 13:20, 19 April 2009 (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.