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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bani Mustafa

[edit]

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

The page is full of hoaxes and sources are NOT reliable and cannot be verified. also there is not neutral view. unreliable sources provided recently to keep the article and prevent it from deletion JohnRak (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable and The page is written by one side only and one person: user:banimustafa and External links in the article are leaded to a personal webpage and has no relation with topic. it is a personal webpage for the author.--JohnRak (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author banimustafa removed AFD template! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRak (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's my fault. When I PRODded the article several days ago, he inquired at my talk page and I informed him that, if he improved the article by adding reliable sources, he could remove the PROD template, according to policy. He was confused and apparently did not realize that PROD and AfD are two different things. Again, my fault entirely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. WP:COI. AfD template restored and author given only warning. He is about to be blocked given recent behavior. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong warning template, but that's not a big deal. It deserved one, anyway. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an AfD template is considered vandalism, and he's had multiple "final warnings" this month already. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just assumed we were meant to use uw-afd4. Regardless, the sooner this is over, the better. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- possibly speedy, per WP:COI, and WP:VERIFY. What few RS's there are (Peake and Field) are improperly formatted so aren't even verifiable. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just thought I should mention that User:Banimustafa accused User:JohnRak of being a sockpuppet of User:Historyfeelings. I have no clue if this is true or not, as I am only involved via my original PROD of the article, and am not familiar with any associated content disputes. I just figured everyone should be aware. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I found this on Google Books.~~ I don't really know much about the topic, but I'm prepared to AGF and relist this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The GBooks reference is actually irrelevant. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious COI, not reliable. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Snowball this article. I tried to find external sources but all that I come up with is names of people. I found the Google Book source as well but it is irrelevant as noted by Tom Morris. Would love to save an article but even someone like me (who would rather see an article live a few days to have a chance for improvement) sees no hope for this page surviving. --Morning277 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 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.