Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Jogi

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. ansh666 04:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Jogi

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Iqbal Jogi (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 subject does not appear to meet GNG.. he has got some trivial coverage from independent reliable sources such as here and here but nothing significant. while language isn't relevant to our notability criteria at all but one should expect a bio on a relevant language edition of WP however in this casen no article in Urdu or even Sindhi WP.... I tried WP:BEFORE this nomination, but was unsuccessful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, There are sufficient references to be kept. Jogi 007 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please establish the notability by providing sufficient references here. --Saqib (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Article has sufficient coverage, it should not be deleted.--
  talk) 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please list sufficient coverage here. Merely saying that sufficient coverage exists does not establish the notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, He is notable and has sufficient coverage. No need to delete this.--Spasage (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Notable and has sufficient references. Arif80s (talk) 07:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Iqbal Jogi is Notable Person. Sugar Coating and Canvassing in Disguise here [[1]].--31.173.188.190 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)— 31.173.188.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If I have my way, I would make sure that all IPs, !voting on AfDs, shall be check-user-ed by default. I wonder, what the outcome will be, in that case! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be also kind enough to note that his notification did not violate the canvassing guidelines and am also pretty sure that I and Saqib, had not crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, if biased canvassing were a case, I wouldn't be fence-sitting (as below) and/or wishing for an extended time-span to locate sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh -I am fence-sitting between keep and delete, at least for now.Anyways, I would advice for a relist, given that all-most all the arguments seem to violate
  canvassing guidelines and neither have I and Saqib, crossed our paths, significantly, ever before.[reply
  ]
• Comment, Please allow this discussion some more time, I am working to find more reliable sources and trying to resolve the concerns raised regarding reliable sources and notability...Thanks...Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 08:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Jogi is not living person. He died in 1987. He was a legend musician (Murli Player) of Pakistan. Furthermore, sufficient references have been cited. Thus, more time may kindly be given to Jogi Asad Rajpar for improving article and citation from reliable sources.--Aziz Kingrani (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note for closing admin Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Possible_issues_at_AfD --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has sufficient reliable references to establish notability. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: "Article has RS but not sufficient" << would you elaborate how and why you see them sufficient? --Saqib (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only way this can be kept is
  π, ν) 03:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

dear, the above reference man pulling snake in nose isnot Iqbal Jogi Which we are diacussing here, that is an other Iqbal Jogi. Jogi Asad Rajpar, Talk to me 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly fails
  WP:GNG. The coverage here is very thin. While it supports some of the material in the article, it's several bare mentions adding up to an article with nothing substantial to say about a non-notable subject. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep. It's challenging to assess the case on WP:NMUSIC and on WP:GNG, especially for people who can't access offline or read non-English sources. Paradoxically, it's some of the material removed editorially as "cruft" by a recent editor that to me presents the greatest claim for notability, and is sourced to the clearly independent Tariq Rahman source, and (assuming rather than double checking accuracy) pushes me over to the line to keep. In the back of my mind is also that we do need to be careful of cultural ethnocentrism, and while notability and usable sources aren't negotiable, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in situations outside the mainstream of "Western" culture.
  Martinp (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Notability requires verifiable evidence.. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, fails our musican guidelines and has no reliable sources. AFDs where a lot of sockpuppets show up are rarely good-faith article attempts, and if this guy was really such a "legend" there would be some sources, at least in the local language. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 17 April 2018 (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.