Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shams-ul-Fuqara


 * 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. NorthAmerica1000 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Shams-ul-Fuqara

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:N - wholly Urdu-language book with not a single English-language review and likely of little interest to an English reader  kashmiri TALK  11:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

(User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

(User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Delete: Sentiment declined after reading MezzoMezzo below. Article in desperate need of clean-up, preferably by a non-ESL (as grammatical errors pepper the thing like bird-shot); all refs and external links poorly formatted. I'm not casting a vote at this time, as while I can't determine which sources are RS (many appear not to be), I am presuming the work is somewhat notable in its own right. I get the impression it's an "old" book; if not, then sentiment declines. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Strong delete There is a veritable forest of these non-notable books all being created and defended by the same group of accounts created within days of each other, but this article is the worst example of promoting a recently published, non-notable book for commercial gain. The first edition was only published two years ago according to the article itself (hope that answers 's question) so it isn't connected to the historical figure, but rather is a modern attempt to cash in on Sultan Bahoo's legacy. Every single citation seems to somehow be connected to the publisher Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd., itself non-notable and with an article probably deserving of deletion. There seems to be virtually no information about this book independent from sites and organizations tied to this religious revival movement or the publishers; this is a not notable book that fails WP:GNG, and if it can't even pass that then it's a huge failure. The fact that the article about this non-notable subject is also a major violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING just makes it come off as an attempt to generate publicity for a commercial product. This article needs to be deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Delete Self-published book with no outside coverage Shii (tock) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

(User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (express)  @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (interview)  @ 20:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2015 (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.