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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdoom[edit]

Makhdoom (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)

Non-notable article. Fails WP:GNG as it is an entirely unsourced article. Not a single reference exists failing WP:RS. Merely seems like an attempt by someone tied to it to exploit Wikipedia to generate publicity. Contains promotional material WP:PROMO. Markangle11 (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SIGNIFICANCE. Note that sourcing is not absolutely required for an article to stand. Claims of "generating publicity" and WP:PROMO do not seem to have substance when checking the article text - unsure why the nominator has inserted them here. kashmiri ^TALK 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what you are referring to is merely an essay and essays are not Wikipedia:policies or guidelines. Markangle11 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not an essay in the meaning of Wikipedia policies, see WP:NOT#ESSAY. kashmiri ^TALK 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essays hold no weight in discussions like this where an article is not meeting a single Wikipedia policy to exist. So you cannot defend your article by referring to an essay i.e. wp:signifiance. The article has NO REFERENCE AT ALL and it cannot stand per WP:GNG apart from violating other Wikipedia policies such as WP:SIGCOV. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Markangle11 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not see any promotionalism or attempt to generate publicity in the article. And from what I have seen when reading articles relating to Islam in southern Asia, the topic does indeed have some significance - when applied to a person or family, the word Makhdoom (in this or other transliterations) has an implication of religious wisdom or authority which it is useful for readers to understand. Having said that, however, while significant or useful but unsourced information on many (but not all) topics can be allowed to survive on Wikipedia until it is challenged and reliable sources are asked for - once reliable sources have been asked for, they need to be provided within the period of one of these discussions. In this case, this is the only suitable source I have found in an admittedly short and cursory search, and by itself, it falls quite a long way short of justifying a standalone article - there quite likely are other more detailed sources, but if so, I can't find them among those that simply use the word as a title or family name without explanation. And, by previous experience, those sources probably need to be found and mentioned here in order to get a consensus for the article to survive. PWilkinson (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article does not have a single reliable source violating WP:SIGCOV and the list of names proves the promotional part WP:PROMO. Also for a standalone article, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, only then it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. This topic does not and the one source you stated does not cover the topic at all. The articles fails the most basic criteria for the article to exist. It is clearly not a notable topic. It is primarily based on WP:Original Research failing notability.

This article is a major copy edit WP:CV of a blog [1].Markangle11 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you then arguing that those names should not be on Wikipedia? BTW, the Makhdoom article precedes the blog post by a few years. kashmiri ^TALK 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri, you dont even know the difference between WP:P&G and WP:ESSAY.Markangle11 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one seems like a no brainer: it's a common title among South Asian Muslims that is carried down through descent or nobility lines. The top half of the article is poorly written and in dire need of sourcing, but regardless it most certainly passed WP:NLIST. We keep articles simply explaining the name of and then listing members of families like Stevenson as well as articles about loose bands of people sharing similar descent such as the Blackfoot Confederacy. For the sake of consistency, a group of South Asians sharing common or similar descent and bearing the same title - which likely includes a higher number of people than both of the aforementioned two examples combined - is certainly notable. The article is just bad and needs a lot of work. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No. Inclusion within WP:LIST IS determined by the notability criteria i.e. inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in which the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and this topic "Makhdoom" violates WP:Notability because a topic is presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and "Makhdoom" has none such sources because it is not notable enough.Markangle11 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You misread or purportedly manipulate the text of the policies and any experienced user can attest to it. Until you use direct quotations, I refuse to feed the troll. kashmiri ^TALK 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good one when you have nothing to defend yourself with.Markangle11 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance on Google Books for about three minutes yielded explanations sourcing the existence and descent of the clan from a U. of Michigan publication, Routledge, Atlantic Publishers and Distribution and Ferozsons. If these quick look is any indication, then I don't think it would be too outrageous to suggest that a more thorough search would yield even more sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Existence and notability are two separate tings. About your forceful research above:

• 1 U. of Michigan publication: Only talks about a feudal lord belonging to a clan not even Makhdoom clan and not title Makhdoom. Book on social pollution with no connection to the article whatsoever. Irrelevant.
• 2 Routledge: Fake. No mention of Makhdoom anywhere.
• 3Atlantic Publishers and Distribution: There is a world of difference between mentioning Rose and citing him as a reliable source. There is a widespread consensus that we avoid these Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. Using books written a hundred years ago as sources is almost never a good idea in Wikipedia articles. However, modern scholars often use antique texts as primary sources, which is quite acceptable, and these modern works can then be used as secondary sources. So for example, modern scholars on Rome may base their conclusions partly on the accounts of Tacitus, Caesar, Suetonius, and other ancient writers, but we should not use those accounts as sources for articles about ancient Rome. These were professional soldiers/politicians/civil servants first and amateur ethnographers second. Their purpose was political and not scientific, they swallowed a lot of now-discredited racial theories, they were very selective in who they listened to, and they had a habit of largely unquestioningly accepting what these not-disinterested reporters told them.
• 4 Ferozsons: Only mentions a name Quraishi Makhdum Ghulam. who is he and what has this mention got to do with Makhdum or its notability.

Drag it all you want. It fails WP:V. Markangle11 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge source isn't fake. Check it again. I also find it quite odd that a simple AfD discussion results in such absolute rudeness and uncivil behavior, in addition to such grasping at straws to discredit the arguments of others instead of simply stating a point and moving on. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First, since WP generally shuns honorifics, I checked to see what had been done with other religious titles, like Cardinal (Catholicism). It does seem that pages that explain honorifics are acceptable. Next, I looked up some of the people on the list in this article, and some have "Makhdoom" in their article title but others do not, and at least one (Mian_Mir) doesn't have a mention of Makhdoom in the article at all. What this tells me is that there is a bigger issue than just this article, and that some decisions need to be made about how to handle this particular honorific in WP. A good place to do that would be on the talk page of this page. Next, this page does not explain clearly what Makhdoom means, how it is confered, etc. At one point it refers to "Makhdoom families" and another "Makhdoom persons" which is very confusing. Once some order is brought to this, the list of people with the title could become a category, since lists themselves make boring reading, and since the article titles most likely will often not have the honorific, as per WP style. So I say Keep but put an effort into making this something that is consistently treated and easily found. LaMona (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (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.