Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheen Lakhan

• Shaheen Lakhan was written by his obvious sock puppet and is again self promotion.--Jiang 01:01, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not written by his obvious sock puppet and is not self-promotion. Anthony DiPierro 12:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Refer to the page history and look at his userpage. Notice any similarities? Do you not find the contribution history of User:SOmai suspicious? --Jiang
      • Suspicious, perhaps. Obvious, no. Contributions should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Anthony DiPierro 20:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Written by his obvious sock puppet and again self promotion. --Wik 19:30, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just reverted the edits on [Shaheen Lakhan] by User:Kuhn3, who came here to vote keep, but had his comments reverted because he got caught in an edit conflict and didn't bother to merge. Another sock puppet by the same user. Click on "what links here". The degree of self promotion this user is putting in WP is disturbing.--Jiang
    • Comment: Just reverted to my edits that are publically known and should be included in such article, of course, with the VfD message. --Kuhn3 18:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Don't revert keeps (or deletes) when you don't agree. Also, don't manically preach delusive propaganda to bear your decision. Anthropos made a initial request for an article creation for Shaheen Lakhan (Village Pump). Willkins agreed and created a redirect until the article was created. I concurred with Willkins and suggested that the current user page (in third person) be moved the article. Somai did just that. I and others have since edited the article appropriately. Therefore, KEEP by Anthropos, Willkins, SOmai, and I. This is certainly not self-promo --Kuhn3 18:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No, that's "keep" by you alone. If the others you named wish to vote, let them do so. This page has one of the hallmarks of self-promotion: it's a lengthy article on a person who is not especially noteworthy. I say delete or reduce to a stub. --No-One Jones (talk) 19:33, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I suspect that User:SOmai and User:Kuhn3 are both Shaheen Lakhan. It's peculiar that the first thing each of you do is to agree on the village pump (agreeing with each other in the process) and then create an article for yourself. User:Kuhn3's addition to the article completely wiped the previous text. Also note that votes originating from those that lack edits aren't counted here.--Jiang 23:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have been edited articles on wiki for a long time, but until recently decided on establishing a user name for the need to make a mark in such forums and respond to Villiage Pump inquiries/requests. However, it seems as if you wish to nullify all votes that you do not agree with. Wikipedia is a free and comprehensive encyclopedia and I as well as others feel that certain individuals should have an article, especially when proposed by multiple long-standing members of the wiki community. My voice counts in this vote, for I have actively contributed and have an argument. BTW, I am not Shaheen Lakhan, as Jiang voices her suspicion quite prominently. --Kuhn3 00:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • If you edited here for so long, then why would you change a version that adheres in formatting with the wikipedia:manual of style to a version that does not? Seasoned wikipedians know how to format their articles and begin with bolded letters. You also changed "External links" to "Links", as is done on User:slakhan, against WP convention. And what about User:SOmai who created the article in the first place? --Jiang
      • Comment: When I performed an essential major edit on the page Shaheen Lakhan, I ADDED the bold title, as I did with other new articles failing to comply with the manual. However, with the case of links, there was a wiki link and external link, so I just used Links, not inconsistent with the manual. This is enough administrative work; I should get back to the real purpose of Wikipedia. --Kuhn3 05:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • No you didnt, it was bolded before - [1]. You added text in front of the bolded name, which is against wiki convention. In what other articles do we have "Links" heading? We usually separate "External links" and "Related topics", per the MoS.--Jiang
  • Keep. I will agree that it appears something fishy is going on as many of the Google hits are somewhat vague and I would guess that it's a result of a tendency to over-represent his connections with prestigious universities. But it is not clear to me that the content on the Wikipedia page it is entirely self-promotion. I don't think there is enough evidence to support deletion. --Nohat 19:54, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite important enough for an article. moink 19:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that while the article is accurate and that Lakhan may have done some great things, it doesn't justify having a page yet. Neilinoz 10:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kuhn3, I can vote for myself, though you are correct in that I concurred with Anthropos for the creation of an article about Shaheen Lakhan. In its current form, I do not find it self-promotion and thereby vote to keep the article. – Willkins 18:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but put on Cleanup. I'll stand by my orignal Village Pump commment that it appears that an article is in order for Shahee Lakhan. His name is certainly not a "household word", but he does seem to have a degree of noteriety, at least in some circles. The current article definitely needs work -- seems to contain some POV, should be verified, and may need some critical remarks. But there's no reason to delete this page. -Rholton (aka Anthropos) 19:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Per deletion policy, five days is a good time-frame after deletion posting to halt voting and conclude:

Keep - 5; Delete - 5; Delete/Reduce to Stub - 1

Voting results - 5-or-6/11 delete votes are less than the 2/3 required for deletion (majority Wikipedia standard).

Decision - Keep the article in its current form.

I will proceed with the directions to unlist this listing from VfD, the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page. Specifically, I will add that a decision has been made, wait 24 hours for the original poster to see the results, and then delete the listing as well as this page. Thanks to all who have voted.

--Kuhn3 03:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Discounting the obvious sock puppets the vote here is clearly 5-2 for delete, and without Anthony it's even 5-1. --Wik 00:00, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I count it as:

• Delete (5): Jiang, Wik, moink, Neilinoz, Wile E. Heresiarch
• Delete or stub (1): Mirv
• Keep (3): Anthony, Nohat, Rholton

that's 6-3. --Jiang

In any case, it's 2/3, no? So why is the page not deleted? --Wik 00:21, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

isnt the threshold 3/4? --Jiang

No. --Wik 22:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

This did NOT make the mark for deletion, but it was relisted. strange... --Demonstford 17:14, 22 May 2004 (UTC)