Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhan Sahib

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. SNOW. Salting. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subhan Sahib

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been repeatedly created and speedy-deleted—see this thread on my talkpage for some background. Rather than keep playing whack-a-mole, bringing it here to either decide it's worth keeping, or decide once-and-for-all that it's not what we want and delete it (in which case I strongly recommend that the deleting admin salt it). For the duration of this discussion, I've restored the entire history of all the deleted versions (note that most of the claims of notability on previous versions, such as "first ambassador of India to the United States", are demonstrably untrue—this version of the article is the one from which every outright lie has been removed.) ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the latest version is no more encyclopaedic than any prior version. I'm guessing that the guy is a much-missed relative or local hero ("local" as in "village" etc) because there really do not seem to be any useful sources out there. I agree with the suggestion of salting if the thing is deleted. - Sitush (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep last version, I linked all document related to this article. Don't Delete this page. AltafProg (talk) 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete and bury deep in a pile of iodized salt per nom. This is a complete soapbox about someone who is clearly not notable. Much of it just makes no sense. It's been nuked before. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don't accept delete request, Try to understand the feelings of person. AltafProg (talk) 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Altafprog (talk · contribs) / AltafProg (talk · contribs), you can only !vote once in the discussion, although you can add as many comments as you wish. You should also only use one account and the capitalisation of the account name matters - see WP:SOCK. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Never heard of this person. Tried looking into web and few archives, but found "nothing"; not even a passing mention. Repeated attempt to create this title is need to be dealt with. Anup [Talk] 10:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. You do not "reference" an article by uploading primary source private documents to Commons while claiming them as "CC/own work" — reliable sourcing for a Wikipedia article is coverage about him in newspapers, books and/or magazines, and nothing else. Wikipedia is not a place where a person gets an article just because "try to understand feelings of person" (which makes no sense, as the person in question is dead); it's a place where an article is earned on the basis of reliable source coverage which verifies passage of a specific notability criterion, but nothing here satisfies either of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per others – notability has not been demonstrated through coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt — This page is the only source about this guy that comes up when you search his name, we can't even confirm if that's him in the photo. Page has been jumping between created and deleted, I say it should stay gone. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Also, if the guy was born in 1910 and died in 1987, he would be 77, not 98. Obvious evidence of a hoax? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, it would be that the infobox coding was malformatted which I've now fixed. Be very careful throwing allegations like "hoax" around on Wikipedia, as unless you have actual evidence of an editor acting maliciously such an accusation is considered a personal attack; you've already come extremely close to being summarily banned from Wikipedia for your previous comment on this AFD. ‑ Iridescent 16:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was never informed about the problem with the first one (seems obvious that there was a problem but I kinda just posted and forgot). I'm not a racist or anything, I just assumed it was a hoax because many hoaxes have glaring problems with them. I'll be much more careful next time. Still learning the ropes here. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful about expressing personal value judgements regarding what someone does or doesn't look like. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.