Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taj Anwar (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Taj Anwar
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

User has attempted to propose this page for deletion, but has somehow not performed the syntax correctly. I will leave it to them to comment on the AfD as to why they wish to delete it. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Primefac. Taj Anwar is not notable. The Wikipedia article for Taj Anwar was originally created for spammy promotional reasons. Vaqab (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Because there seem to be procedural problems with this article and I don't think that currently it is in a state that we can evaluate. Looking at the history, it was formerly over 6,000 characters long. But it has been subjected to page blanking and edit warring, until it has been reduced to a stub. To give it a fair chance, I think we need to evaluate the original text and sources, but we can't because they've been deleted.
 * The previous AfD ended as no consensus because the subject is covered in a chapter in this book, Rebel Moms: The Off-Road Map for the Off-Road Mom, by Davina Rhine, iUniverse (self publishing company). That argument is still valid. I looked at some of the sources that were present earlier, and many of them seem to be dead links. But one of them (the "gangsta" quote) was in the Wayback Machine, so I fixed that.
 * What I would suggest is that this article be edited to restore the sources that can be salvaged, and rewritten to the extent supported by those sources. And then if it's still not notable, it can be nominated again. (I'll also note that the nom has been on WP for only 2 days, but very active, and is clearly not a new editor.) – Margin1522 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Taj Anwar was written about in a **self published** book, so I don't think that should count.
 * Looking at the edit history, you can see that what was deleted wasn't backed up by reliable sources.
 * The claims made in earlier versions of the Taj Anwar Wikipedia article were patently false. For example, it said she has a PhD since that is what she herself has claimed (but it isn't true).
 * If you google "Taj Anwar" you can see that she isn't notable, rather, a self-promoter. She calls herself a model but literally is not and never has been. Earlier versions of this Wikipedia article falsely claimed she had modeled for Banana Republic (this is 100% false).
 * Take a look at this version which is *filled* with false and/or unsourced claims. For example, that version claimed Taj Anwar's birth name is Tajik Assata Anwar Bahoul with no source. That version falsely says she was in graduate school and has a doctorate (completely false). She has no degree from Georgia State University. There are no legit sources. The man that's listed in that version as her "mentor, respected activist", Kalonji Jama Changa, is not notable either.
 * Her story is that she is on welfare ("governmental assistance") and has children. That's literally her activism, being a client of social services agencies and having children. None of the organizations that are listed in her Wikipedia article are notable.
 * Forgive me for repeating myself but I think it's unbelievable that there is a Wikipedia article on a random person when it's clear that it was created for self-promotional reasons and filled with outright, major lies. @Margin1522, nothing can be added back that has been erased because the Wikipedia article was never legitimate. It was full of lies (modeling, PhD) and self-promotion. Vaqab (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be so, although I'm dubious of the claim that she never modeled, since I think an earlier version Google had a link to a (minor) modelling agency 2007 social networking site for models, with her picture. That leads me to suspect that at least some of the other sources may have been legitimate. I'd also note that you seem to know a lot about the history of this article. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, it might be better to disclose whether you have been a major contributor. Per WP:MULTIPLE, it might also be a good idea to disclose whether you are or have been using another account. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. Setting aside any problems with the nom, the subject fails GNG. Pax 06:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 08:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.