Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rai Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal


 * 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. In the end of the day, we do not have a single source about the guy, and after adding and removing text from an unreliable source the whole article is Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan Kharal, was a freedom fighter in the Indian rebellion of 1857. . Deleted, no prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Rai Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I've tried Google and JSTOR searches, including using alternate spellings (eg: Ahmad/Ahmed) and also the Urdu variant. All I get is thousands of mirrors and the odd blog post. Sitush (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Existence is proven fact and hence likely to have a cult following (street names, memorials etc. etc.) Since this man is of historical importance this much notability easily passes WP:GNG. The Legend   of Zorro  00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It is rather easier to find sources with a shorter version of the name, though this does also pick up some rather more modern individuals - . Google searches give enough to strongly suggest that he is still regarded as a folk hero in the Pakistani Punjab for his local leadership in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 - unfortunately, the relevant sources that I have spotted all mention him in passing, though in terms that suggest that there should be more substantial accounts elsewhere. The question is whether these can be found (in English, Urdu, Punjabi or whatever) during this discussion. PWilkinson (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good spot, shortening the name. I'm not sure if you have actually ploughed through all those resuls but I'll dig through them and see whether there is anything more than the passing mentions. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep . This source is better, I think: from Dawn : http://www.apnaorg.com/articles/shafqat-5/ --  Also: http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Punjabi+hero%22 Zananiri (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

*Delete - Lacking context; as per CSD A1, unless further new context is added from now. STSC (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 *Speedy delete - CSD A1. There have been no attempts to improve the article. STSC (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 
 * Comment - I have restored the content which was previously removed so that the article may be improved by regular editing. STSC (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are RS supporting the notability of the subject. STSC (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you, sorry. APNA is not a reliable source, despite their highfalutin' name - Academy of the Punjab in North America. They are an advocacy group and are known for circulating copyvios, fringe theories/extreme pov etc. At best, they might just verify that the guy existed. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 29 July 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.