Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakir-u-llah Bakoti


 * 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. (soft) slakr  \ talk / 02:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fakir-u-llah Bakoti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

cannot verify claims fails WP:V. All edits that I checked are promo, plus an attack page. User:Atifsati sockmaster of a collection of blocked spammers (autobiographies/ WP:BIO / WP:V failures). socks are User:Paharhikhan, User:Molvi333, User:Birotvialvi, User:Bakotbakot, User:Malik zahoor, User:Syedbasit raza, (possibly unrelated User:Millertime246), User:Novice6, ... Widefox ; talk 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not currently in a position to comment either way. I will say that on the surface, there are sources which may possibly be reliable. If they are indeed self-published/promotional, it will take time for other users to confirm. I might try to look into this myself soon, but I will say up front that this one may likely be a tough call. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Observation The article is already looking a bit fishy, but I for one am not ready to say whether or not deletion would be valid here. What I will say is that we have two sections which are worthless in terms of establishing the subject's notability. The first is the Descendants section, which is irrelevant per WP:NRVE. The second is Books related to immortal speritual mission and life of Pir Bakoti Usmani which is just an unsourced list of books which the subject supposedly wrote, no proof that they actually exist. So I would say right off the bat that in terms of assessing this subject's notability and the merit of the article that those two sections should be ignored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And one more thing...the subject died in 1921, and there is only one source cited for the section on the subject's death...from 1868. I'm no math whiz, but that source is about fifty years before the subject died, so how is it a citation about his death and his estate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 09:02, 11 June 2014 (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.