Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakhruddin Shaheed

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 redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhruddin Shaheed

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

Self published sources , highly unnotable person belonging to dawoodi bohra, no notable mentions in other sources I checked also has many factual errors, written like Advt Summichum (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 10:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is article on a saint (11th century AH, 14th century AD) famous amongst Taiyabi bohra for his sacrifice for the cause of religion. He has follower all over the world where Taiyabi lives even amongst Yemeni Bohra.--Md iet (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer following for coverage being done on the subject: [1] [2] Publisher General Books LLC, 2010 ISBN 1155549767, 9781155549767

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md iet (talk • contribs)

well, if there are references, add them to the article, not to the deletion discussion. If the article isn't fixed, it will have to be deleted, but I for the record, in case the page ends up being deleted for being unreferenced, the article can be recreated at any time based on proper references. --dab (𒁳) 18:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fix or redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. The person is already duly mentioned on the Dawoodi Bohra page, so if nobody is up for fixing the bio article, it can be turned into a redirect pending proper development. --dab (𒁳) 18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think, a redirect to List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra would be more appropriate. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)~~ --redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a dai but just a member of that community , hence should be deleted as all references are primary partisan from that sect onlySummichum (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references given by above md iet who evaded topic ban , are all primary self published and hence dont prove notability , the article has various anecdotes which sound as advertisements.Summichum (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user md iet was banned mainly because of behavioural evidences and not just ip analysis , both md iet and this are same, this user is misleading with frivolous "simulation", was topic banned also not just because of "claimant" but many other past actions which culminated in a ban, @Anupmehra: :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet/Archive

Redirect to Dawoodi Bohra. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dawoodi Bohra, as the others said. There isn't any proof of notability for this inidividual in and of himself, but since he is mentioned on that page leaving this as a redirect would get users to where they need to read about the general topic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (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.