Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi

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 merge to Mir Sham ud-Din Iraqi. Same person. Sandstein 12:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Greenbörg (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. So Why 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. So Why 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. So Why 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. So Why 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mir Sham ud-Din Iraqi. Appears to be the same person. Better article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like the merge tag was there before you submitted this to AfD. Is there a reason why this should be deleted and not merged to the other article? It seems like an uncontroversial merge/redirect and seems like a reasonable alternative search, and thus a fair candidate for redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Uncontroversial merge to me, now the other article has been identified. It needs a proper merge, by someone who knows about the subject, not a mere redirect. I am concerned about the number of red-links in the article we at discussing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2017 (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.