Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sajjad matyal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. — ξ ^xplicit 01:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sajjad matyal[edit]

This is a (unformatted) WP:FAKEARTICLE; in some cases I'd being willing to let something like this slide, but there are a number of claims about living people, some of which cross into violating WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well there is plenty of material here to expand Matyal so this is not so much a fake as a draft. I would suggest that you edit this page to remove the offending material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sajjad matyal collected all information personally and believe that all are correct at the moment this article is changed by removing those parts which were not authenticated by historical evidences now these are check able facts I hope now you will accept this and add under the article name(Jat matyal) thanks sajjad matyal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjad matyal (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme, none of the information is sourced, so none of it could ever be added to the article. Note that the user here admits that it's "collected personally". I can also confirm that most of this would never go into a caste article, because it falls victim to one of the most common flaws that new users make: equating last name with group status. But we have shown, time and time again, that simply having last name X does not mean a person is part of Group X, because names change over time, there are numerous cases of two groups having the same name (including in widely different parts of the world), and there are many people who explicitly reject membership in these vaguely defined groups (particularly when they no longer live in Indic areas). If I was going to edit the offending material...well, I'd remove all of it. Which is what I'm suggesting by the MfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of original research; this also appears to be a fake article. I'd encourage including correct, sourceable information into the appropriate article, but per Qwyrxian above it doesn't make sense to do so if the material itself is thus flawed. dci | TALK 04:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The page was created 16 October 2012‎. I think giving the new user two months improve the page and ready it for article space was a reasonable amount of time reasonable, given the unsourced characterizations of living people likely having some connection to the user. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.