Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaikhul Hind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Speedied by Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs) as a copyright violation, WP:CSD#G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shaikhul Hind

Shaikhul Hind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork.Non notable person.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Question. A POV fork of what? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • To promote the school .Please read the first line Darul Uloom Deoband, . It is about him that it has been said that the student who first of all opened the book before the teacher, it was Mahmood.This article clearly fails WP:BIOPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please try reading past the first line. The article is about a person who was active in the struggle for Indian independence. How can you call that a fork of an article about a school? Are we to merge all articles on people into the schools they attended? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is not written neutral manner as per WP:BIO and WP:NPOV and feel it fails WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated by eight book sources cited in the article, three of which mention the subject in the title. If that's not enough for you then take a look at the Google Books search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable independence figure, esp. in Sunni revivalism in the 19th century. He nets gnews hits, a respectable number for a man dead for 90 years.Bakaman 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure Don't quite know what to make of this article. He may indeed be a notable historical figure, but this needs to be documented much more thoroughly if the article is to be kept. Google Scholar turns out almost nothing about him. The article includes loads of historical material that is at the moment almost completely unsourced. If the article is kept, all this data either needs to be comprehensively sources ASAP or the article has to be reduced to a stab for a while. There are also NPOV issues and substantial English usage problems that need to be addressed as well. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Changing to Keep per Google Books search results. The article does need substantial cleanup and lots of explicit sourcing. Nsk92 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup and wikify. Appears to be a notable figure (backed up by eight independent, written sources). This shouldn't be deleted. PeterSymonds | talk 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; way more notable than most of Wikipedia's BIO articles. There's books written about him, he's turning in up in mainstream newspapers in 2007. It definitely needs cleanup, but the article shouldn't be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - as a copyvio from http://www.darululoom-deoband.com/english/introulema/principals1.htm -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
First, could you please add your signature? Second, the link you provided does not seem to work. Nsk92 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (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.