Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahan Shah I


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Jahan Shah I

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded on the off chance that outside sources exist. However, the current sources appear to be fabrications, as I get absolutely no hits for those book names with those authors. Nor can I find anything else reputable with "Jahan Shah I" in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Of the two sources, one is in Urdu and one doesn't seem to exist. It stands to reason that if Jahan Shah I was in any way a notable mughal, there would be a reference to him in some English language source or the other but, other than on Wikipedia mirrors, there don't seem to be any. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator and other commenter so far were presumably misled by the unwarranted regnal "I" at the end of the title - the article needs a different title (Jahan Shah (Mughal) would be a possibility if there weren't two actual Mughal rulers also for whom the same name is sometimes used). The subject of the article was apparently one of four sons of Bahadur Shah I who fought for the Mughal throne after Bahadur's death - he was killed within five weeks, but even so does get a bit more than passing mentions in sufficiently detailed histories of India (here and here, for instance). PWilkinson (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This makes sense since I don't see the I in any of the sources and he wasn't actually a king. Apparently, he was supposed to rule a part of the declining mughal empire but never actually got around to doing so. Jahan Shah (prince) would be even more appropriate. Regardless, the mentions are still barely passing ones and his notability is questionable (unless the sons of emperors are notable in their own right). --regentspark (comment) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that any serious pretender to the throne of an empire would be considered an appropriate topic for an article by any serious encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course "any serious pretender to the throne of an empire would be considered an appropriate topic for an article by any serious encyclopedia". The devil is, of course, whether this person is considered to be a "serious pretender" or not. I'd expect to see a lot more talk about the gentleman if her were a serious one. Dara Shikoh, for example, is much discussed but young Jahan Shah doesn't seem to get the same respect. Still, I suppose it's a toss up. At least we can be reasonably confident that the chap actually existed so that's already a plus. The other "serious" part of your statement is best left unanswered :) --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping slightly irrelevant things small, maybe I should have said "any encyclopedia that aspires to be serious". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's plenty more coverage in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no requirement sources must be in English. Wikipedia is meant to be a world-wide encyclopedia. Deleting this would just lead to even more US/British bias in coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not averse to keeping this article (per Phil Bridger), your reasoning is faulty. While there is no requirement that sources must be in English, material in an article should be verifiable. If no editor can verify that the source says what it is supposed to be saying, then we shouldn't include that source because, if we blindly accept non-English sources without verification, we leave ourselves wide open to hoaxes. --regentspark (comment) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Phil Bridger's sourcing convinces me that there is enough here to pass the N bar. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:31, 16 October 2013 (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.