Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Ali I

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (John Gell) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ali I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I am failed to find any coverage in RS. Cited source doesn't say anything about the subject. Saqib (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to connected it with citations but may or may not be you find about this on google easily. You will see the article and I think that it should not be deleted as I am working on it. Thanks! John Gell (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - long name with common ending (as well as period) makes verifying this difficult in my BEFORE, however if his position of a Nawabs of Punjab is confirmed, that probably would be inherently notable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verification fails. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MUHAMMAD SAFIULLAH - the master sock created dubious bios in the past. --Saqib (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a WP:HOAX - it has spread on Wikipedia to well beyond this page - see Nawabs of Punjab, Humayun Bakht, House of Hakim. I suspect however it is possible to verify this. Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried chasing down the refs in this newly created article - without success. The external links do not seem reliable (and one of the two doesn't mention him). Furthermore, it seems that if this individual existed he was a pretender to the title from the Mughals - who lost control of the Punjab (Battle of Lahore (1752), Third Battle of Panipat) - making the claim to inherent notability very sketchy, and it does not seem this individual passes GNG. Note that it seems this content was inserted into several other articles as seen above. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- If he was a nawab, I would also expect him to be notable. The name is a common one, so that verification will not be easy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: See comments above. --Saqib (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete - I purposely only commented and prefaced what I said with If. I have since followed links to read a source cited in respect of his alleged predecessor Humayun Bakht. This has long accounts of conflicts between the Marathas and Afghans over Punjab, ending with the rise of the Sikh kingdom. Nowhere did this mention any nawab, from which I have to conclude that the position of nawab was at most a titular one, carrying no actual authority. This leads me to the opposite conclusion from what I wrote above. I would certainly have expected a nawab to be notable, but in this case, at best he was not. WE may be dealing with a pervasive hoax, as Icewhiz suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a HOAX, on closure, can someone please nominate the rest of it for deletion. My knowledge of Indian history is sketchy and I am therefore reluctant to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nawab position did exist, AFAICT. And the predecessor did hold some sway on the ground. It is a harder case in that the later (unverified) titular Nawabs are in various article - harder to fix than straight up deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2018 (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.