Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadaat-e-Saithal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadaat-e-Saithal[edit]

Sadaat-e-Saithal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another in a series of WP:OR articles from User:SKZssZZ. I simply can't find any solid evidence that his many Sayyid/Saithal-related forks exist as he defines them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. this user has made hundreds of edits (albeit all minor) in such a short span that I suspect he's using a bot. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to [1] this article has been deleted once before, on April 15, but I can't tell how. Likely a speedy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was an A7 (see this). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest to focus on content, not on contributor. Articles are not deleted from Wikipedia just because author has used bots or because he copies the content elsewhere. If anything, WP:OR would perhaps apply unless we are able to identify supporting sources per WP:PRESERVE. — kashmiri TALK 18:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reminder. I've clarified my comment to scratch out the discussion on the creator.
@Shawn in Montreal: I think you could have nominated all the pages together under one afd. This could've simplified discussion as the concern in almost all the articles are same. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmiri, I meant that the article creator has repeatedly been found to be transferring (copyvio) content from his website to this project, per WP:NOTWEBHOST. But no matter: of course the article should be judged on its merits. If anyone can find a coherent, encyclopedic topic in any of his creations I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shawn in Montreal: How can there be a copyvio when he adds here his own work? Also, you seem to misunderstrand what NOTWEBHOST is all about. Take a look at web hosting service please, it well describes hosting services that WP aims to be not. I say again: I see no indication this editor is using Wikipedia as a web hosting service. Such prohibited use, certainly, did sometimes happen, mainly when users tried to host images or other high-bandwidth content for their websites on Wikipedia. But creating articles in mainspace certainly does not fall under NOTWEBHOST. If anything, the article should be judged against WP:N and WP:OR. — kashmiri TALK 10:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to waste time and space here, but content or articles can indeed be deleted as copyvio when one adds one's own work, if an OTRS ticket has not been acquired, unfortunately. This is a very common occurrence -- and it seems to have happened several times to this editor quite recently, judging by what one sees in the edit history and page log. As for the rest of it, of course, WP:N is at the heart of whether this article gets deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't still get what grounds do you want this article deleted on: technical (copyvio/lack of OTRS ticket, bot use, hosting), notability of article subject, or creator's behaviour? Because discussion seems to be going nowhere. Note that I did not !vote either way - I am only trying to understand what problem do you see with the article or its creator. — kashmiri TALK 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll expand on the nomination statement this way: this appears to be another in a series of WP:Walled garden articles from this editor that which a) cannot be verified to exist as he defines it, b) is apparently composed of his own original research claims, c) cannot be found to be notable by any independent reliable sources and d) is such a sprawling mess that I daresay WP:TNT might apply, if there were an encyclopedic topic here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavily prune -- We normally regard populated places as notable, but much of it is repeating material that I am voting to delete in other noms. The merge nomination for Sayyid is certainly inappropriate. Some 1300 years after the death of Mohammed, there are thousands of his descendants, who are often prominent among Muslims. That a town was founded by a descendant is hardly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: if I understand correctly, Sainthal, Uttar Pradesh, linked to in the lead, is the populated place. This is another of the author's family tree forks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and salt. It's already been deleted once on 15 April. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt (don't forget Sadaat e Saithal without hyphens). The title suggests this article should be about a family/clan/community, not a populated place like Saithal. A subsubsub branch of an Islamic family is unlikely to be notable among the countless South Asian Muslim families/clans/communities. There are so many sayyids, that being one is hardly a claim of notability anymore. In fact, none of the sources even mention Sadaat-e-Saithal; they are all supporting other marginally related stuff. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sadaat-e-Saithal&oldid=1070627306"