Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Speedying as WP:G5; article -recreated by socks of banned user User:Chintu6 who has been trying to perpetuate this hoax on wikipedia for almost a year now Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind


This page was recently deleted at Articles for deletion/Ghazwatul Hind. It was reposted with the comment "Some jealous Indians got it deleted by bribing wiki admins" which gives me no confidence this page needs to be put back in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I warned the IP at User_talk:169.149.49.17
 * As the MfD was over 4 years ago, it is reasonable to reconsider. Legacypac AFCH accepted it 03:39, 13 October 2018‎.
 * It was recently CSD#G4-ed at Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind by User:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights
 * Ping AfD participants:
 * Closer: User:Joe_Decker
 * Nominator User:Razimantv
 * Consider pinging others depending on forthcoming comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed I did accept the page which is why the draft was on my watchlist. Oddly the history starts with my accept on it which I can't understand because it should show who created the page too. I must have misread the date of the AfD l, so I struck the recently. I brought for discussion because of the unusual situation here. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You created this page as the trailing redirect when you accepted/mainspaced the draft. An IP has re-posted the deleted content on top of your redirect.  If not deleted, a history merge with Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind will be needed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for restoration
 * This article is available in many other language wikis: Urdu,Arabic,Bangla etc.with much less content than on the English wiki.
 * This article received >2000 visits per day when it was live.
 * A Google search for 'Ghazwa e Hind' gives 2,28,000 results
 * This article was deleted citing earlier deletion of 'Ghazwatul Hind'. The latter was very limited, but the updated article was quite detailed and users were expanding it when it was live.
 * Those opposing this article also stealthily redirected a supporting article Kitab al-Fitan (book) to weaken the sources.
 * The Indian nationalist cyber wiki army have carved a huge reach over the years on Wikipedia to do things like these, so my humble request is to protect this page after reposting it on the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.59.1.46 (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you the same person as who made the rude unacceptable comment while copy-pasting reposting deleted content?  I advise you to not do that, and that you will get more respect if you WP:Register.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not an Indian, never even been there yet, and someone must have forgotten to send over money for handling this page. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hadith_of_Ghazwa-e-Hind has been deleted very quickly without any discussion between the contributing editors & other parties. This makes things seem bit fishy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.149.50.224 (talk)
 * Comment The article is well supported by reputed & verifiable online references. I can't understand why it keeps disappearing from Wikipedia. It surely needs protection. My PhD thesis has some sections on Ghazwa-e-Hind, so I am in favor of seeing getting the article expanded and adding to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savage-Son-Of-War (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)  — Savage-Son-Of-War (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment* Right now news channels of both India & Pakistan are discussing it. I had to search Google for the term and landed here. Topic is hot on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:0:825A:0:0:F73:E0A1 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)  — 2405:205:0:825A:0:0:F73:E0A1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep in draft space while the issue is sorted out. The aspersions of corruption are a reason to block the IP, but not a reason to delete the draft.  It may be in order to revisit the deletion of the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason this wasn't G5'd is because it was a redirect created when the draft was moved. The article itself was deleted because it was created by a sock. Praxidicae (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to mainspace I have reviewed this work and submitted it to 'Articles for creation' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:0:825A:38C4:F88:114F:4C1A (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article was removed without any voting/consensus. Here it is available on Rational wiki. Now people are stealing content from here and growing their own sites — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:8:C677:A1DE:F280:7A8D:E47B (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey Ladies....leave this LGBT community, I just finished syncing the article here. Come on & let us grow it there...see u soon...wooohooo Savage-Son-Of-War (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * delete and block all of the socks (I've filed at SPI and will be filing for global locks later.) This is nothing more than an attempt to POV push xwiki and wildly misrepresent what this is. Praxidicae (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:G4 may apply, as this appears to have been recreated to avoid deletion. This draft itself is a hoax, as it relies on works of fiction such as this. Bradv 🍁  16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment initially I thought this was a valid religious topic in an area I don't know much about. It turns out to be a highly charged hoax kind of thing. Seems like SALT would be a better seasoning here. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.