Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safdar Hussain

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safdar Husain

Safdar Husain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Police officer who did his job, as some two hundred million(random number) police officers do in the world. Not notable, fails to fulfill WP notability criterion. Rather an appraisal someone wrote for a family member or a friend. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Inspector rank, so would appear not to be notable- the article is hagiography which is irrelevant, but refer Wikipedia:Notability (people) Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable person andy (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comment "Police officer who did his job, as some two hundred million (random number) police officers do in the world. Not notable, fails to fulfill WP notability criterion." it is not reasonable to make general propositions without considering the concrete cases, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used to say that General propositions do not decide concrete cases.

It is also not reasonable to expect the layman reader to read the history of an article of Wikipedia and check the revision history of an article, but we expect from an administrator or editor of Wikipedia who place a tag of deletion to check the revision history of an article. The original introductory para of the article reads as follows: “Safdar Huassain, a retired Senior Superintendent of Police, and formerly an Inspector of Police of Punjab Police (Pakistan) is famous for his bravery, gallantry, high degree of honesty. He served British Indian Police Service and Punjab Police, Pakistan with iron hands. In the present context of terrorism in Pakistan, old folks still talk about his bravery. The criminals were so terrified by his personality, that he was said to never wear the arms.” This introductory Para briefly describes the topic. But an editor like you has changed and now it reads as follows: “Safdar Huassain was a Senior Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police of Pakistan's Punjab police” and after reading this first line you have place the tag of deletion.

My original words, “In the present context of terrorism in Pakistan,” were deleted. Just type on the google “terrorism in Pakistan”, and you will find the most dangerous country of the earth. The police of this country is not like the police of your country. The criminals of this country are not like the criminals of your country. Now the army cannot control the persons, which it is the duty of Police to control, because we have no Police officers like Safdar Hussain. Just read the latest news 1 2

When I wrote the original article, there were also the following lines, deleted by your friend;

"He administered his area effectively and provided service & protection to the people of the area, who still remember his legacy, and in this context, the old folks talk about his positive role in the history of the Punjab Police (Pakistan). He was an exemplary police officer, who maintained a very high degree of honesty, integrity and professionalism. He was said by the people of Punjab (Pakistan) to put the gold necklace on the neck of a goat and let her go in his area, and no one dared to touch the goat. Due to political pressure by politicians allied the criminals of that time, the government was forced to transfer him, and actually transferred him but ultimately,

Governor of West Pakistan, who also belonged to same Awan (Pakistan) tribe of Safdar Huassain, cancelled this transfer. This time Safdar Hussain dealt with iron hands with the criminals." These all lines were deleted.

He has a fame that is still remembered by the people, still quoted by the judges in the court of Punjab, still discussed in the Police training centers. It is a general principle of Wikipedia that editors write in good faith. If i write an article on a village or town of my country or people, I write in good faith. English language is not my mother tongue, but I am making effort to contribute to Wikipedia. It is not reasonable for other editors that first to delete lines and change the article and then place tag of deletion, instead they should improve it. With respect, I have to disagree with you.Averroist (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references do not satisfy the need tor significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to satisfy
  WP:BIO, the standards for notability for bio articles in Wikipedia.There are two citations to a broken link (article not found) from the local police department, which might not be considered "independent" and a link to some webpage related to some mall, which not only does not mention him, but which would not be considered a "reliable source" for biographical information about historical figures. There is mention of a book, but no bibliographical information which would allow one to decide if it is a reliable and independent source. Lots of laudatory assertions made here by Wikipedia editors are not at all effective in establishing notability. Were there other books, newspapers and magazine articles from independent and reliable sources? Edison (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have deleted 2 broken links. Webpages are often moved to other pages. with a small research an editor can find it. With regard to your comment "a link to some webpage related to some mall, which not only does not mention him, but which would not be considered a "reliable source" for biographical information" was given at the end of a line, only to refer to an historical event, not for biographical information." There are reference of 3 books in Urdu language. There are many articles of the newspaper "Daily Jang" written about this officer and many other officers, but are not available on internet. I am not a full time Wikipedian. I remembered the contents of the article, but unfortunately did not save date of publications of these articles. There is the archive of newspaper, but I am now out of my country. Averroist (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the notability of the person

I have significantly improved the article with 29 references and reliable sources to show that the person is a notable man in his area. Previously I did not mention his ancestry or praise his family background in order to prove his notability, but I tried to describe his personal contributions. But the above mentioned objections raised by the editors force me to do this. Even if we ignore his professional contribution, he is a notable man.

The electronic media of the modern world and specially his country is very different from his time. Most of the job he did under Martial law government, and he displeased the government. The press was not independent in his country and the electronic media started in his country in 2002. He got retirement in 1986.

During the course of my legal practice, I heard the fame of this officer. To find the references authorities and reliable sources is my job. I have created the article

]

The notability or importance of the father is not an issue here. You added tons of references for nothing, you not improved the article in the required direction, the references are for trivial facts or for unrelated stuff. Besides all the blablabla in the article one of the rare important sentences is he maintained rule of law with iron hands, without any fear or favour, which made him a hero in the history of the Punjab Police (Pakistan).[35] The footnote 35 (in the currect revision) is a statement by a colleague. Sorry, this underlines the missing notability and it also underlines that there is no public coverage/literture related to the person and that the article is therefore some sort of original research to close this gap. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the notability or importance of the father is not an issue here. The issue is the notability of the person. I am a lawyer and know that what is the point of issue. I’ll come to it later but I ask you a question. What claim do you have to acquaintance with the tribal and feudal areas of Pakistan and their tribal heads. When in the end of the last century, While writing about the Chiefs of Punjab, Sir Lepel Henry Griffin states in his book entitled, “The Panjab Chiefs: the most authentic book on the subject that; “In Shahpur District, the Awans held the hilly country to the north west, Jalar, Naoshera (Naushera) and Sukesar, where the head of the tribe still resides. Here the writer is writing about his grandfather as the head of tribe. When a representative of British Raj in 1905 writes that his father “is the son-a respectable Awan of the Salt Range. He thus belongs to an influential tribe in which his father is much respected.”

It means that Our person is now the head of his tribe and so a person of notability, I also wrote that The author of the "Tareekh Awan", History of Awan, has listed the names of all the ancestors of Safdar Hussain, while giving his complete genealogical table starting from his father, Khan Sahib Qazi Zafar Hussain”. So noble an ancestry he has, that only Sir Olaf Caroe Governor of the North-West Frontier Province, who spent 60 years of his life among the tribal people, can appreciate it. but you wrote all this as blablabla. I always use decent language and civilized language and when I look in my Oxford dictionary. I could not find this phrase. When I searched on internet, I came to know that ‘

“The phrase bla bla bla is generally used in response to someone that has said one of the following things: something that is not interesting to you, something very close to the truth but you have no intention of admitting to, or just random comments of bullshit and sarcasim (most popular.) This phrase is commonly used in text messages and very popular in the town of Weert, Holland.”

Make yourself aware of Wikipedia's policy and do not use the phrase like this one. An editor of Britannica or Americana will never use these phrases. You are an administrator of Wikimedia, so please do not make the standard of wikipedia so low. Now come to the point. The name of the article is not Safdar Hussain as a Police Officer. If you find a sentence without proper reference you can edit it, change it, or delete the sentence, but please do something. But you have no right to delete the entire article. If you are not happy with picture with Police Uniform, I can upload other one without uniform. But the person is notable, if not as Police Officer (by your standard), as head of his tribe, as I have proved by references. If I find references you say that it is original research. Very clever, There is public coverage/literature lying in the the archive of the daily newspapers. But the archive before the year 2000 have not been digitalized of the newspaper of this country. Averroist (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is indeed Safdar Hussain, a retired Senior Superintendent of Police and formerly an Inspector of Police of Pakistan's Punjab police. Thats how the article introduces him and thats what the article is about. The article is not about Awans or hilly countries, although most of the content is such negligible narration. The core of the article not changed since your unexplained removal of the initial prod, the notablity is still not demonstrated. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have improved the article and the introduction in the light of your criticism. The introduction of his tribe Awans, its importance and his area (not the Hilly countries, you do not read the article with care, why do you taunt or you are prejudiced ) has been mentioned only under the heading “Family” and not in the whole article. It is also important because when due to political pressure by politicians allied the criminals of that time, the government was forced to transfer him, and actually transferred him but ultimately, Nawab of Kalabagh,

Malik Amir Mohammad Khan, Governor of West Pakistan, who also belonged to same Awan (Pakistan) tribe of Safdar Huassain, cancelled this transfer. It is only his tribal background that he could survive political oppostion. With regard to your comments "the notablity is still not demonstrated" is your subjective and prejudiced opinion. Averroist (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to bring to your notice the two basic principles of Wikipedia. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing. Even the most experienced editors may need a gentle reminder from time to time. So Please do not bite the newcomers Averroist (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article is victim of Discrimination

There are many other articles on wikipedia relating to Pakistani Police officers. These articles also needs additional citations for verification, and the tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia,but why only my article is victim of discrimination? which was far better than these articles.

• Sardar Muhammad Chaudhry
• Zeeshan Kazmi
• Dil Jan Khan
• Chaudhry Yaqoob

Averroist (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector rank

With regard to the comment by Crusoe8181 that "Inspector rank, so would appear not to be notable-" the higher rank of police officer is not a criteria of notability. The criteria is his fame. During the period of British Raj prior to and following creation of Pakistan, this officer was more famous as inspector till 1960 because government was very strong, and the post is of field officer. Many dacoits were gunned down by his revolver at that time. With these

he acquired great fame. Later on, when he was promoted, and did his job as Superintendent of Police in period of great political instability, and frequently changing political government, he was less powerful than as Inspector.

The deletion discussion must be decided by those person who are authority on history, culture, and government of Pakistan and British Raj. When in the above para I added an internal link for Police encounters, I found the article

. The starting words of this article is "Encounter killings is a euphemism used in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to describe extrajudicial killings in which police stage "gun battles" and shoot down suspected gangsters and terrorists." Now this job is mostly done by the rank of Police Inspector. Note that only 3 countries of the whole world has been listed in this definition. Many films have been made on this subject in these countries, and the film industry make great money by making these films.

"Crusoe8181" has in his mind the inspector rank of his own country. He does not know that what is Inspector Police of British Raj and the period following creation of Pakistan.Averroist (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography

With regard to the comments of Crusoe8181 that "the article is hagiography ", I also wrote in the original article that "he was famous for his hot temperament and he used to beat hard criminals several time." and "and due to political opposition against this hot-tempered examplry police officer,". This is not a praise. This is a criticism. As a lawyer of criminal justice system, I strongly believe in the rule of law, and that a Police officer should not take law in his hand, but I wrote what is reality. Averroist (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family member or a friend

With regard to the comments of Martin H. that "Rather an appraisal someone wrote for a family member or a friend.”, the administrator of Wikimedia has insulted my contributions and services for Wikipedia and my writings. Why you wrote “someone wrote”. Do you know that you can check the name of user which created the article by seeing the revision history of the article. Do you know that you can make judgment about a user after seeing his user page and contributions. Do you know that this “someone”, has created 13 articles and improved how many artcles. They all are not my family members and friends. They are heroes, writers, philosophers of my nation. Please check that how many universities there are in our country, It was not any representative of university that wrote the articles but I wrote the articles. Please learn to make correct user page and please correct the html code of your user page before putting tag of deletion in any article. Averroist (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Someone in an English-speaking country with similar cridentials would undoubtedly be considered notable. However, I can't speak to the article's sources so I will refrain from !voting. PinkBull 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry Averroist, you really seem to have a sincere admiration for Hussain and put a lot of effort in the article, but I must agree with Martin H. Most of the references are only for the tribe and geography, whereas the main claims to notability are only based on hearsay, folklore, and reputation. You may have heard others talk about him, you may have known him personally, but WP requires proof from reliable published sources. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:17, 3 June 2011 (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.