Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majid Zabuli

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. No arguments for deletion, nominator has withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid Zabuli[edit]

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

This article relies on a single "source". Most of the text cannot be derived from the "source" Even if it could be, this has none of the indicia of a reliable source, as that term is defined on en.wikipedia. So what we're left with is entirely based on prohibited original research David in DC (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SOFIXIT - each of those handy 'find sources' links contain actual RS. u n☯mi 21:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again we see "poor writing" being conflated with all sorts of entirely unrelated problems, SS, RS and even (oddly) OR in this case. Google Books turns up hundreds of very real, very cogent hits. Phail. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Poor writing"? For heaven's sake, the initial paragraph was verbatim transcription from a page that's not even a reliable source. I've fixed the worst of the copyright violation, but that's not poor writing, it's theft. The remainder isn't written so poorly. Not so well either, but I've seen worse. There may be sources for some of what's in the article right now, but one sure as hell cannot tell so from the page. I've made the spelling of the bank consistent throughout, on the assumption that the bank has nothing to do with Thoroughly Modern Millie. But whether the copyright violation above the heading or the original research below it has the proper spelling, I cannot divine. Unless someone matches some of these googlehits with some of these facts, they are presumptively the original research of the editor who accreted them into our encyclopedia project. No one has done so in the years since the article was tagged. Crap can stay up for some time while awaiting an editor to insert sourcing to differentiate the text from some anonymous dude's apparant original research. "Some time" does not stretch on into infinity. Eventually wheat must be harvested and chaff discarded. For this article, in my view, the reaper's time has come. David in DC (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out, everything below the heading was theft too. The editor who inserted it cut-and-pasted it from a single blog. Right down to the idiosyncratic, inconsistent spelling of the bank's name. So the editor violated WP:COPYVIO and accreted a blogger's original research, verbatim, into the article. Saying there are sources is simply not enough. To be a keeper, there must be some way for the everyday user to know what sources back what facts. On this page, every single thing was cut-and-pasted from one of two websites, neither of them a reliable source. Outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT what possible policy-based argument can be made for retaining this article. It should be deleted, without prejudice to someone creating a new article that bears some passing resemblance to what wikipedia policies call for. Someone who thinks that's worth doing ought to ask to have the article "userfied" until they can research and write such a piece. But it will be a hefty job. They'll be starting from scratch. David in DC (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Sure, it's poorly written - but he's very obviously notable. I'm going to start fixing it right now. According to WP:DEADLINE there is no reason to take it down while it's being worked on. ManicSpider (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable -- just check the RSs under google books. Saying that there are sources is in fact enough (if true). AfD is not a tool to fix the way an article appears, if there are RS sources reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Added two references. Player in important negotiations between Washington and Afghanistan in 1949. But could use better sources. Not much mention of him in US or British publications, or in political newspapers & magazines; but it is probably likely that this is a function of his career happening before the Internet age etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that he was a little over 100 when he died in 1998, I'd say that's likely ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be notable. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current version. The version I refused to delete via speedy back in 207 did not yet have the copyvio--it was added at [1] in 2010 and not spotted until this article was afd'd, though not initially on that basis. . Obviously, material written in such a manner is the obviously copyvio whether or not the source can be immediately identified I'm quite amused actually by the exclamations of dismay that it takes us so long to source articles--good writing and research take time and effort and resources. I have now gone back and warned the editor adding the copyvio-.and he has additionally been adding unsourced material apparently from personal knowledge to a geographical article. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nom I've never done this before, so please be gentle. ManicSpider has performed a heroic WP:RESCUE. He's taken a clearly horrifying example of what shouldn't be here and turned it into an admirable example of what should. I'm quite amused that two years worth of a tag saying the article was sole-sourced led to insertions making it worse but one saying AfD led to a rescue in less than a day. It sorta refutes "...it takes us so long to source articles--good writing and research take time and effort and resources." Apparantly it doesn't. It apparantly takes less than a day. I guess Mr. Johnson was right. David in DC (talk) 11:32, 7 January 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.