Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zayyam

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. Content doesn't seem verifiable and is very short, so no point in keeping it as a draft. ansh 666 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zayyam

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

Seems plausible, but both of the sources (no removed) were to website home pages; nether site has content for this name.

Perhaps an Arabic speaker can comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:APONOTE. No articles about people with this name (or spelling variations of it), and too few ghits for the name in Arabic script, which indicates it's unlikely there will ever be any. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft. Why would you submit a draft to AfC, accept it, and then nominate it for deletion in the space of six minutes? As the creator didn't even submit it for review and there are no pressing content issues, they deserve the chance to come back to the draft if they want. Any concerns about sourcing can be noted in a comment in the normal way. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The draft was submitted for review by its creator, then declined by one reviewer, who's known for being deletionist. I see the this AfD as a sort of re-examination of their review. Moving back to the draft space is a valid option, though I personally don't see why we would want to encourage editors to work on articles that don't stand a chance of ever passing the notability threshold. – Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not merely "known for being deletionist", but blocked for socking to cause improper deletions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uanfala and Pigsonthewing: We give editors wider latitude in draftspace than we do in mainspace. There have been multiple discussions about whether notability applies to drafts that have failed to find a consensus, for example. I understand overturning ST's review, but accepting it only to immediately delete it is still confusing to me. Simply letting somebody else review it would be an adequate "re-examination". If the creator doesn't come back after six months, it will be G13'd, and if there is some other concern (I don't see how there could be in this case, but) the usual practice would be to take it to MfD. This accept-and-AfD is out of process and in my opinion pretty damn bitey. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that accepting the draft and then immediately nominating it for deletion has the appearance of being out of process. And if we stick to the letter of the rules, it is indeed. But the underlying assumption here is that there is some proper process that this draft would have otherwise undergone. There is no such thing. What usually happens to declined drafts is that their creators abandon them and after six months they get quietly deleted per G13. This deletion is more or less an automatic process (never mind the efforts of some editors to try and save good content). The decision for deletion is more or less taken the moment the draft is declined: there's no discussion and no community oversight. As long as the AfC processes are as dysfunctional as they are, there's nothing out of process in trying to give declined drafts a second chance by passing them through the one wikipedia discussion process that specialises in notability and sourcing. And even a negative outcome like the one here ("no chance this will ever be notable") is more helpful to the drafts's creator that the vague and generic boilerplate text they received when their draft was declined. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft as per above. PriceDL (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have notified WT:AFC of this discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a search for it, the The Complete Book of Muslim and Parsi Names By Maneka Gandhi, Ozair Husain, doesn't list in, nor does a giant list of Muslim name sites. Aziz is the name for Respect in Arabic. But it is worth noting that there is soo many Arabic tribes, all with different customs. Worth keeping for the moment in draft. scope_creep (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- No verifiable information whatsoever. Moving back to draft will only increase amount of garbage, since the submitter failed to provide a single reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to draft as per above. scope_creep (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary, as it is, it is a dictionary definition -- 70.52.11.217 (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enough process wankery about draft and such. The full content is "Zayyam ( Arabic: ضىام ) is an Arabic origin name used mostly by male Muslims." This is so obviously not worth keeping even in draft, if only for WP:V reasons, that only deletion makes sense. No prejudice to a sourced recreation establishing notability. Sandstein 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even going to bother looking up the name for notability. This is so short, it's too easy for anyone to replicate with some meat if there is any out there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:36, 15 January 2018 (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.