Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Aqeeq Baba


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Shah Aqeeq Baba

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined a test-page speedy, but a good faith search is not showing independent, reliable sources for notability. Normally I'd just speedy this, but given that he lived almost 700 years ago and sources may not be in English, I think more eyes are needed on this. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * delete no main content and no references - user can add to existing draft User:Hammadsaeed/sandbox and proceed with article via AfC until its more suitable. KylieTastic (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Now has both so removing vote as I don't have time to review now KylieTastic (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject isn't notable. All that I found about the subject online are Pakistani blogs, so this could be a hoax for all I know. If there are sources, this content should be developed at Wali before being spun out to a standalone article. I'd also note that the talk page is filled with suspicious SPAs I'm going to take to SPI momentarily, so I expect that they'd show up here, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete until there's actual content to begin with. A draft already exists as KylieTastic mentioned, so I'm not feeling sorry for deleting-but-not-really-deleting this page. Besides, most South Asian saints tend to have no more than a very local "fame", so I would not be surprised if notability through independent sources can not be demonstrated. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Pending !vote after Kashmiri's findings below, although I am still unsure if it would not be better to just blow it up and start over. Having browsed through several images, the spelling seems to be variable and not only due to transliteration conventions: the Arabic-script name in this image is حضرت سيد شاه يقيق بابا i.e. Ḥaḍrat Syed Shāh Yaqīq Bābā, while this image speaks of حضرت سيد شاه عقيق i.e. Ḥaḍrat Syed Shāh ‘Aqīq (using scientific romanisation here). I know for one that hadrat and syed are honorific titles, and I thought the same goes for baba, thus the essence of his name appears to be Shāh ‘Aqīq/Yaqīq (or Shah Aqeeq/Yaqeeq if following common South Asian transliteration). Searching for the latter simpler names brought up a few snippets, such as "URS OF SHAH YAQIQ, at Thatta, the historic town of Sind located about 80 kilometers from Karachi on the National Highway." and a catalogue entry saying "Hagiography of Shahu Yaqiq Bukhari, 1431?- 1451?, a celebrated Muslim saint from Sind, Pakistan" (which indicates that there is a source with significant coverage). --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, but unopposed to re-creation by somebody able to write in an encyclopedic and non-hagiographic (read: peacocky) way. Extensive sockpuppetry has been confirmed, so I feel uncomfortable keeping this page and so, in a way, condoning the sockpuppeteer's actions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Even though I reported the creator of this article at SPI and am trying to stop his spamming of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that a mausoleum (dargah) of such a person exists in Uch Sharif, Pakistan where it is a local centre of pilgrimage. Google image search for "Dargah Shah Aqeeq" returns a handful of photographs from various sources while Geo TV, one of the largest TV channels in Pakistan, aired a documentary on the place in 2013 . As to the historical person of Shah Aqeeq Baba, most what is in the article is based on local legends, so perhaps some serious trimming and tagging is needed, but hey, with good copyediting Wikipedia handles such stuff pretty nicely. The only doubt I have is whether not to move this article to Shah Aqeeq mausoleum, describing the place based on the Geo TV material, and keep is under WP:NGEO. The person of Shah Aqeeq could be then presented in the context of the place. — kashmiri  TALK  15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete Weak keep - I agree that Shah Aqeeq Baba is not a hoax (I don't know how much of his story is fictional, but fiction!=hoax). However, the Geo TV report and the link in the article to a page on the rightfulreligion blog is talking about a shrine in the town of Shah Aqeeq in Thatta District in Sindh (south Pakistan, not far from Karachi). Uch Sharif, where the individual is from, is in the Punjab (north-east Pakistan, not far from Multan). I skipped around, but the Geo TV report didn't seem to talk much about the person. Given that no page for the town of Shah Aqeeq exists, I think such an article should be created as a new article (I don't think the history or content of this article would be valuable in such an article). My feeling is that the mausoleum would go as a section in a page on the village. I'm not sure if Shah Aqeeq Baba is a useful redirect to this page; the character, Shah Aqeeq Baba, is more closely associated with Uch (for instance, the article mentions Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari), and a redirect to a town named after him in Sindh seems odd, but maybe I'm wrong. All that said, I would !vote keep to an article about this individual if there were a reliable source about him (or even if the Geo TV article does talk in some depth about him [if so, can you give the time in the show that it occurs in the citation]), but I can't find one. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first link provided by HyperGaruda, "Pakistan tourism directory, '86", my understanding is that the word "Urs" refers to a celebration of the anniversary of death, which means that while the first link you've given refers in part to the town of Shah Aqeeq, it is a calendar of events giving the date of a holiday in honor of the person. It is hard to be sure when using snippets, but that suggests evidence that the individual is notable (and certainly the physical artifact suggests notability, as Kashmiri says).
 * Regarding the second link, "Accessions List, South Asia, Volume 7, Issues 1-6", I see more of the snippet at the link, telling me that the book seems to have been written by Habibu Sindhu (born in 1957), published in 1986 by Soshal Vailfe'ar Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa in Cuhar Jamali (the society: Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa [also Anjuman-e-Ghulaman-e-Mustafa] is not clearly unreliable, I'm not sure how Wikipedia would handle it though).
 * Further, the page at righfulreligion has been expanded, and new sources have been added there, particularly this one (which is really about the town and shrine) from BBC News Urdu: . I have tried to develop the article using these sources. There have also been a number of video news reports linked below and at the rightfulreligion blog about the town and shrine, but these do not seem to add anything more about Shah Aqeeb the individual. I continue to think it would be fine to create a page about the town with a section about the shrine.
 * When Hammadsaeed's block expires, perhaps they will be able to comment on the source of the rest of the material (although it was recommended in their block they keep their editing on this page to a minimum). In the meantime, I changing my vote weak keep for a limited article about the individual (which can be expanded if sourced) including only the sourced material - I think the stuff taged c-n can/should be removed. I think having an independent biography (any biography written hundreds of years after an individual's death is at least somewhat independent, after all), a shrine, and a holiday recognized at the national level is enough for WP:ANYBIO #2. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Shah Aqeeq Baba is an Asian Sufi Saint. Many people all around the world visit his shrine for spiritual peace and they search for shah Aqeeq but they could'nt find any thing on Wikipedia,so I think this page shouldn't delete I vote to this page. You can see these link for evidence WP:NGEO  hammadsaeed  TALK  8:28 am, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Creator may be attempting to canvass, per my here. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Add sock puppetry to that. We are still awaiting a CU for confirmation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what are you saying?? Hammadsaeed (talk)
 * Please read WP:SOCK, and understand that using multiple accounts to try and sway consensus is strictly prohibited. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK sorry User:Boomer Vial but what can I do I just want to save this page because this page is necessary for Pakistanis and Asians how I can I explain.......But I just want to save my page Hammadsaeed  TALK  11:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Same canvassing attempts here: . — kashmiri  TALK  15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per HyperGaruda. Blow it up, and start it up after the sockpuppet editor is blocked. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per the above comment and HyperGaruda. I agree that it is probably best to blow this up and start completely from scratch with the interference with from the sockpuppet editor. This is certainly one of the more interesting AfDs that I have run across since starting Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- - I think You all are European or American so that's why you don't have any concern about our Sufi Saints.But in Pakistan it has so much value.And stop spoiling my page edits without any information.I note that you change the edits of my page without information I research on Shah Aqeeq Baba about 2 years till now. I humble request to you all that I want this page because His Annual Death Anniversary is celebrated and a holiday recognized at the national level is enough for WP:ANYBIO and above evidences are enough I think and Urs of Shah Aqeeq Baba is held on 5th March 2017 means next month so I want this page before 5th March sir it's a humble request.and It's not Hoax.  Hammadsaeed  TALK  08:12, 01 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not much chance of keeping a stable article until after the socks are blocked. He's moved on to vandalizing user pages of other involved editors now.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am curious, is there a policy about deleting pages because they are unstable or even possibly as a way of expressing distaste at the actions of the pages creator? For what it is worth, I still !vote weak keep and have been tagging/removing uncited material from the page once or twice a day for the last few days. In any case, while I'm not sure Hammadsaeed fully understands WP:OR and WP:RS, I do think that his continued efforts to add uncited material to the page could now be considered vandalism. Perhaps this page should have some protection, is that something that should go through AIV, or is there an administrator watching this page willing to protect the article at least until the AfD is over. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the WP:G5 policy, which to me seems to have a punitive aim. -HyperGaruda (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * NOTE -- In light of the confirmed case of extensive sockpuppetry and persistent disruption, I have semi-protected the article for 3 days (allowing editing by confirmed accounts only) and have required pending changes review for a further 3 months thereafter. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep --  sami  talk 13:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC) In case the outcome is delete, the title should not be banned for recreation by an uninvolved editor(s) per WP:BIAS.  sami  talk 12:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete via G5. THis was a direct violation of a block by a sockpuppet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * G5 does not apply directly to this page, since it was created before the creator started violating sockpuppetry rules and the resulting block. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 2 March 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.