Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ilyas Mirza

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. I discount Acejet's vote (as he called it himself) and that of Rirunmot as being devoid of policy. The burden of proof is on those seeking content to be included or retained to source it. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ilyas Mirza

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

Article subject does not appear to meet the minimum requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are no indepth sources cited in the article (indeed, the article is 100% uncited) and a quick google search turns up ONLY Wikipedia mirrors, with no indepth discussion of this subject in any independent sources. If sources could be provided, even non-English ones, it would go a long way towards helping establish notability here. Jayron32 04:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced. Granted, it's tougher to find sources for names that are transliterated from Arabic, Cyrillic, Hebrew etc., but it's the author's job to prove notability. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but heavily tag for improvement. We should not expect Pakistani historians to be as well documented on the Internet as Western ones. I would like to be able to assess this on the basis of some sources, for example reviews of his books. It is difficult to tell from the present article whether his books are mere family history (probably NN), derivative compilations from the work of others (perhaps also NN, not not necessarily) or the result of substantive academic research, and thus major contributions to knowledge. This is second recent nomination of a historian whose article is poor and unsourced. I hope we may have contributiuons from some Pakistani WP-ian historians, who know. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that award mentioned in the article from the American Biographical Institute doesn't seem to be worth much, so, if there is any notability to be found here, it can't be based on that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a vanity scam. I removed it from the article since I don't think we should be promoting the ABI here, and in any case it's worthless and unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Full of weasel words, looks like self-promo.--Yopie (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Muhammad Ilyas Mirza[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs referencing --Rirunmot 22:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep Being an inclusionist, I vote for a keep - there is simply a need for references. Acejet (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely unverifiable BLP. Cannot locate any of his works in Worldcat nor the National Library of Pakistan catalog [1]. Zero Ghits on "محمد الياس مرزا" (the name in Perso-Arabic script). cab (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2010 (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.