Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time of Imam Mahdi

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Imam Mahdi

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

Unencyclopedic; appears to be original research (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy?) delete. At least part of the content appears to be copied and pasted directly from this page. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good call. I thought that it looked copied from somewhere, but a quick search couldn't find the source. Let's let the AfD run its course (at least until/unless an admin closes it early.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. I also tagged the article as a copyvio. GregJackP Boomer! 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purported source is a slideshow uploaded by someone with an account named "rummanii". The article here was written some 13 days later by someone with an account named Rummanibni (talk · contribs). It's not outside of the bounds of possibility that this is the same person. So you might want to find other grounds for deletion as well. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my nomination and messages to the author refer to the original research angle, not just the copyright issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Assuming that it is indeed copyvio. -- WikHead (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked at some of the pages of the site of which is alleged to be a copy-vio. I would suggest that the whole thing is WP:OR based on the web-author's view of islamic exchatology. Unless reliable independent sources can be provided showing that this is a widely-held interpretation of islamic scriptures, I would suggest that it has no place in WP. My attitude is similar on some of the more scatty interpretations of Christian scriptures, emanating from th American deep south, though some of them may have been widely enought publicised to warrant an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.