Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mian Taj Muhammad

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Taj Muhammad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG in my view, the sources cited in the article currently aren't reliable sources per WP:RS and research doesn't bring up much in the way of additional useful sourcing. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is one source which is of OUP publisher, but it is not accessible, other than that all other sources seem to be poor. Maybe draftify the article first to let someone improve it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment As You can see I've improved the article very detailed, it is now easy to understand everything added strong sources that meet Wikipedia rules , i improved it and i suggest please do not let it be a smoke , keep it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.61.99.27 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:HEY. Recent improvements to the article appear to have addressed the sourcing issues raised by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's something really odd here with the edits that expanded the article. It looks like they've been pulled from another article - Rumi. See the Childhood and emigration sections added here and compare to the same section in the Rumi article. Most (if not all) of that edit appears to be lifted from the Rumi article and Rumi changed to Taj. The copyvio report has some big hits, but I think those are all from the text copied from the Rumi article, which substantially predates this one (and appears to predate those reported possible copies). Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ravensfire above makes a very valid observation and I entirely agree with these concerns that the supposed "expansion" is nothing more than a prose lift from another article with the name changed where it appeared. Furthermore, the diff noted has clear evidence of the poor quality of the content being merged, with half-started or half-finished sentences and formatting issues arising from this clear violation of copyright. I would hope 4meter4 would retract their !vote in light of this. Even "expansion" edits before this which use credible references are relating to Rumi, but passed off as "Taj". There is no valid consensus to keep this and so i'd favour outright deletion or draftification at best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also took the decision to revert the article state back to that from when this afd was initiated, on the basis of the above. I have warned the editor in question, who already has previous copyvio warnings. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice catch Ravensfire. Delete per nom and Bungle.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (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.