Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haidar Malik


 * 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 keep. The article clearly has encyclopedic value. (non-admin closure)  FITINDIA   06:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Haidar Malik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the general notability guideline (significant coverage). The only source is a passing mention in a book from the 1950s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicoffee71 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently an Afd created by a newbie account who might not have perhaps completely understood our WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines. Not much helped either by the quality of the current article. Haidar Malik is a historic personality, referred to by multiple scholars and authors for his uniquely iconoclastic representation of history of the Kashmir region in his year 1621 treatise Tarikh-i-Haidar Malik. Haidar Malik's life and work are covered significantly in innumerable books like Kashmir under the Sultans, Dictionary of Indo-Persian literature,, Kashmiri Scholars Contribution to Knowledge and World Peace,, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Cambridge, Economic history of Kashmir during The Mughal period 1586 1819 AD, and innumerable others. He's been oft quoted as being amongst the three most important historians of his times. The subject qualifies on both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. I'll encourage the  to withdraw the nomination and to contact me on my talk page to understand better Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Warmly.  Lourdes  09:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are more sources, please put them into the article. I'm not great at citing non-internet sources Academicoffee71 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'll try to do that over this weekend (you can too, if you are interested). Sources not being cited within the article is not considered a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. Would you consider withdrawing the nomination? Warmly,  Lourdes  08:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- In dealing with that long ago, we cannot expect a large output. The alternative might be to merge the author-bio with an article on his book.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep' - As demonstrated, this passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The nominator is reminded that, with the exception of biographies of living persons, sources do not have to be in the article to demonstrate notability, they only have to exist. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 31 October 2017 (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.