Thajuddin (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has a place in the history of Kerala, it is a biography of a man who lived in AD 600, known as Chera King Cheraman Perumal (Thajuddin), but he went to Mecca and met Prophet Muhammad in person, converted to Islam and took the name Thajuddin. There are many sources that prove this, books, articles, historical documents, and the mosque (Cheraman Juma Mosque) built under his instructions is recorded in history as one of the first mosques built in India.

The article important role in the entry of Islam into India and Kerala

:Reference

1. Books:- [1][2][3][4][5]
2. News articles :-[6][7][8][9][10]
3. JSTOR :-[11][12][13]
4. Other articles:- [14] [15][16] [17]

1. External links:- [18] [19] [20] [21][22][23][24]

Notable Acknowledgements of this Biography

• Chera dynasty [25]
• Rulers of the Chera
• Companions of the Prophet
• Part of Splitting of the Moon

The location where he was buried after his death : (GPS

This historical biography was deleted for being hoax and Sources cited are poor in quality This page can be brought back to life with good editing based on sources, for which I request you to restore this page.

AFD's Quotes:-

kept in the first AFD, rejected and deleted in the second AFD

The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merger or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision
_ Liz (First AFD Closed admin)

Keep. Kings are automatically notable......
_ Eastmain

Admin who participated in second AFD Relisting comment:

I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
_ Liz (2nd AfD Relisting admin)

~~Spworld2 (talk) 4:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the almost-unanimous result. The appellant's claim that the article was "kept" in the first AfD is false. The result of that AfD was no consensus. The appellant already brought up all these arguments at the AfD, and they were soundly rejected. This extra kick at the can is a blatant waste of DRV's time. Owen× ☎ 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the first AfD, "no consensus" meant "do not eliminate", which was later retained.

  Sock puppet account were shared in the discussion and the discussion was not discussed further Spworld2 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I'm not 100% sure but feel that we probably need to discuss this a bit more. It feels like there was an overemphasis on the word Thajuddin in the discussion rather than Cheraman Perumal. I'm not any kind of expert but it looks like that's another name for the same person. If that's correct then there are peer reviewed papers and books about them. I've found others in addition to those mentioned above. To me the suggestion that the character is mythical or a hoax is irrelevant if we assess that the sources are sound. I don't think there is sufficient discussion of the sources (for good reasons including problems with socks) in the discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was only one non-sock account supporting keep. The overwhelming, policy-based consensus was correctly interpreted and the appellant's views were debated extensively and did not convince other participants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's note: I was suprised there wasn't more disucussion about the sources because it's my experience is that is typical when the type of sources given here are presented. But there wasn't and my job as closer is to just reflect the consensus. I think Liz correctly relisted to give more time but it ultimately didnt convince and I felt it important to act on the consensus present before and after the relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I completely understand the frustration and why this is at DRV. Every single delete !vote appears mistaken - either that this is a hoax or that GNG isn't passed. The possibly incorrect name of the person in the title doesn't help. Looking through the sources, it definitely seems at least possible to have an article on this person, even if it's not immediately clear from some of the sources presented, and I haven't looked into reliability of the ones which I have seen. But there was almost no source analysis in the AfD. I'm really not sure what course of action to propose here. I'm not sure anything AfD related will be helpful, so probably draftify to allow sources to be added back into the article and then allow it to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD. Reject this DRV nomination without reading through due to it throwing up irrelevant information. Read advice at WP:THREE. Choose the three best sources, no more. Write a draft, featuring those three best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure of Delete as the right conclusion after a consensus to Delete. The AFD was a mess, and the closer did the best that they could from a an AFD that wasn't a train wreck but was a wreck.
  • The AFD was corrupted by sockpuppetry.
  • Both the Delete arguments and the Keep arguments were misguided.
    • There were Delete arguments claiming that the article was a hoax, when the question should have been whether the subject was legendary rather than a real person (and legends reported by reliable sources may be notable as legends).
    • A Keep argument cited royalty noability to say that kings are always notable, but royalty notability is a failed proposal, not a guideline.
  • There was no source analysis, although the relisting admin asked for source analysis.
  • Sometimes a closer really should count votes. In the absence of plausible arguments to assess the strength of, the closer counted votes rather than supervoting.
  • Allow Submission of Draft for review. The submitter should be aware that citing royalty notability insults the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, I don’t see how anyone can !vote endorse when the arguments given were not policy based and there was no effort to engage with the sources offered on the page or elsewhere.

  Counting votes is never acceptable, this is not a beauty contest we are trying to reach consensus.

  I accept that points made by !keep and !delete were both spurious. But it’s a ridiculous position to then make that it was correct to delete the page. We literally do this stuff thousands of times a week - we tell new people it isn’t about majority !voting and it is about following the policy. And usually that’s the GNG, which can only be determined by assessing the sources.

  Furthermore I don’t see how we can say that we “allow submission of a draft” as a remedial step. If we do that, the page remains deleted, which in turn is likely to affect AfC reviewers because the new draft would closely resemble the deleted page. I mean how can it not? The page has been deleted for bad reasons, a good faith editor could start from scratch and write a page using the same sources and see it deleted (or not moved from draft) for the same reasons.

  In my view the only real options available a) are to strike the delete and reopen the AfD for further discussion or b) send to draft as it is. Anything else makes a nonsense of these processes and the time we all spend trying to make judgements on topics against the notability criteria, policies and guidelines. JMWt (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) : Closer was correct in their assessment of the consensus. Although many bare urls were posted , most of these "sources" were unreliable, WP:UGC, WP:SPS, or WP:RAJ, and nobody explained how they provided the required significant coverage or any coverage at all about the topic. No source assessment was provided by the keep voters either. In the end consensus was not favour of keeping the article. Nxcrypto Message 14:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]