Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALQASIM II BIN MOHAMMAD

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ALQASIM II BIN MOHAMMAD

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

Contested WP:A2 and WP:A10, because the article falls halfway between them, yet does not fulfill either criterion completely. The page is a hardly comprehensible machine translation of ar:القاسم كنون بن محمد بن القاسم, which duplicates the scope of Al-Qasim Guennoun. Also, the all-caps title clearly does not need to be kept. This page needs to be WP:TNTed (and preferably retranslated by someone fluent in Arabic, but that's for another time). HyperGaruda (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Besides being a copy of extant material and a duplication of content which belongs at Al-Qasim Guennoun, this article is absolutely unreadable and unsourced. The Arabic-language version has only general references and no citations. I see no point in retaining this content nor is there any way a non-Arabic speaking person could merge this into the existing article. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is utterly unreadable, the stub article actually conveys more information than the wall of text that is this article. There are also significant issues with this article meeting WP:MOS and at best this is an essay. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with some reluctance). The other article cited here is a mere stub, but I do not see how anyone could merge this on, or in the absence of citations, be sure that it met WP:V. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2016 (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.