Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hakim


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

House of Hakim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Related to Articles for deletion/Hakim Shah Jahan, a supposed member of this dynasty. The article was created by someone whom I highly suspect to be a sockpuppet of a notorious inventor of Punjabi noble history, but that subcase was closed as stale. Anyway, I cannot find a single reliable reference for its mere existence. It is also unconventional to say the least, that a dynasty is named after its last member instead of its founder. HyperGaruda (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, it looks very dubious to me. I would expect to see a substantial discussion of the Hakim's in one of the sources of the lead, but it's not there.  The three sources in the lead are;
 * Tīmūr Lang's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. I don't have full access to this, but there is no mention of any Hakim in the article lintroduction.  Perhaps someone with full access can confirm.  The source is meant to verify that the Hakims are a branch of the Timurids. There is also no entry for any 18th-century ruler named Hakim.
 * The Mughal Empire, mentions Prince Bidar Bakht, but does not verify any connection with the Hakims, the fact that the source is supposed to be verifying.
 * Merchants, Politics, and Society in Early Modern India: Bihar, 1733-1820 refers to several Mirza's but I'm not seeing Bidar Dil Mirza, let alone that he was a Hakim, the fact the source is supposed to be verifying.
 * I looked at one more source, Emperors Of The Peacock Throne, and then gave it up as a bad job. The only Hakim in this book led an Uzbeg invasion of Punjab in 1580. Not only is this the wrong date (two centuries too early) but the invasion did not succeed and Hakim did not become ruler. SpinningSpark 12:22, 12 October 2018 (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.