Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Mustafa

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. ✗plicit 03:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mustafa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Out of the 15 references in this article, most of them simply list the figure in a list containing the names of hundreds of Shah Jalal's disciples. Majority of these sources do not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Much of the content is ahistoric and retrieved from unqualified bloggers. Ibn Battuta makes no mention of this figure at all, and the figure's supposed descendants does not make him notable in his own right. This article contains a lot of puffery but lacks reliable sources. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. --Jaunpurzada (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is content from unqualified bloggers, or other sources that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, it would be more effective to remove that before discussing whether or not the entire article should be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Let me list all of the references:

Not a reference, should be a footnote.
Dead link of unknown credibility.
Reliable source but he is mentioned in four brief sentences, with the main focus of the chapter being Shah Jalal.
Unidentifiable book with an unidentifiable author.
Can't access this book, but most probably mentions him briefly in a long list of Shah Jalal's disciples
Although newspaper editorials aren't ideal sources for this topic, it is a reliable website. No information on Goswami, who is most likely a journalist.
Ibn Battuta does not mention Shah Mustafa at all.
Mentions him briefly in a long list of Shah Jalal's disciples
This is an insecure news site which is not well-known and the author is not known.
Insecure news site, reports the commemoration of his death anniversary and some legends pertaining to him.
Can't access this book, but most probably contains the same information as the other Bangla Academy journals
Reliable news site, main focus is on death anniversary commemoration.
Government report, mentions his tomb as a tourist attraction
Reliable news site, main focus is on death anniversary commemoration.
Seems to be an old website, very briefly mentions the figure
Banglapedia reference on his descendant. Notability is not inherited.

As it can seen, most of this page has been WP:OR and PUFFERY and does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. Most of the reliable sources out of these are focused towards his death anniversary commemoration which is common for all Sufi saints in the Indian subcontinent and does not display an independent notability. The reliable sources mention little information whereas the bulk of this information on this article has been taken from the unidentifiable/questionable sources or constitute original research. This article should be deleted as it is just like Khanda Jhokmok and Aziz Chishti.Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2023 (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.