Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sher Bengali


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ali Sher Bengali

 * – ( View AfD View log )

To be frank, this article glorifies our subject despite historical scholarship barely documenting sufficient notability to be included within Wikipedia. Some of the sources in the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. Of those that do, some of them are not about our subject at all and are used to source points irrelevant to our subject. The sources which do mention our subject only mention him in passing, never as a separate topic. Article contains a lot of Original Research to make it look like more notable than it actually was, which can mislead people. In connclusion, this article fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject fails notability and the sources on the page are poor to unreliable WP:HISTRS with many failing verification with no significant coverage on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes Wikipedia's minimum requirement criteria WP:GNG. also there are many offline sources are available, for more information please see WP:OFFLINE. Some of ref are 1, 2, 3, 4. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youknowwhoistheman (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete The article is confusing and does not show why the subject is notable. Passing mentions collected together does not add to notability or establish a coherent timeline.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage only Passing mentions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2024 (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.