Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind


 * 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. A rough consensus exists that the GNG isn't met here. j⚛e deckertalk 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ghazwatul Hind

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on non-notable topic with no reliable sources. The only source given in the page is, a random website. On googling, I was unable to find any reputable sources covering the topic at all. Raziman T V (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I deleted the "random website" referred to above, basically for the reasons given. That was before reading this discussion - I'd only come here because I was monitoring something else. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep:The sources mentioned are quite reputable and more than enough to establish notability so do not delete please.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Fails WP:GNG. Agree with the nominator, no reliable source found. www.ghazwatulhind.com is probably a self published and completely unreliable source, used to support an article entitled "Ghazwatul Hind".  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I will be adding additional sources to this article, please do not delete so quickly. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 14:41, 27 February 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 03:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)




 * Note Relist vote is also keep, i have at least added one additional source which is a well known book of Hadith and the book quotes both Ahadith mentioned in the article thus meets the criteria for notability and should be kept. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note Added another source. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You have just added Sunan Nasa'I as a source. Do you have a Hadith number so that we can verify for ourself in one of the translations? In any case, one Hadith is only proof of existence, not of notability. -- Raziman T V (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Raziman T V, i don't know the exact Hadith numbers but they are in "Volume No. 2, Chapter: Kitab-al-Jihad, SubChapter: Ghazwatulhind", sorry i totally forgot to answer your query in a timely manner. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've spent an hour or so trawling around and can find nothing of note. The two remaining citations (see my apology above) are both obscure and the work of the same pair of writers. I'm seriously wondering whether this is almost a WP:FRINGE thing and that this might explain the sourcing difficulties. That said, I've only been looking for sources in English. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note The sources given are good enough and very reputable. Two sources are given because one is an original book and the other one has English translation in it too for English readers. They go down to the chapter. Moreover a source does not have to be in English to be a valid source. It can be in any language.


 * Keep Please add more reliable sources apart from hadiths. Have added some reliable sources on Ghazwa-e-Hind. Please check the article and vote.-Vatsan34 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, seems to largely be a fringe position adopted by Pakistani ultra-nationalists and hardline Islamic groups to justify dominion over the Indian subcontinent. It also doesn't seem to be treated (at least in English), by any serious religious scholars or other reliable sources.  "Weak" because such things may exist in Urdu and Arabic, languages I don't have a strong grasp of.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete per Sitush and Lankiveil. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 02:58, 18 March 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.