Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatehpur Inscription

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 without prejudice to recreation if better sources can be found $Salvio$ 08:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatehpur Inscription

[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)

Previously draftified to allow author to add sources demonstrating notability. They instead added irrelevant references and moved it back to article space.

The Department of Archaeology reference is a single line in a 25-page list (which supports it being in Chittagong District, but contradicts the article's assertion that it's in Fatehpur Union (Hathazari)).
Banglapedia doesn't mention this inscription, but briefly mentions other inscriptions at a mosque in Chittagong City, 20 km from Hathazari Upazila.
The third source mentions other inscriptions at the opposite end of the country, in Thakurgaon District, but not this inscription.

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, including by Bengali script, found other "Fatehpur" inscriptions elsewhere on the subcontinent (such as the Reh Inscription), but not another word about this one in reliable sources. Alas, the Department of Archaeology (Bangladesh) is penniless and toothless. An artefact being on one of their survey lists doesn't give it the clout that being a listed building in the UK or being on the historic register in the US does. It is not enough, in the absence of any significant coverage by reliable sources, to meet WP:GNG. Even if one believed differently, WP:NOPAGE would apply. Worldbruce (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it requires to get deleted, while I even did a little research on that but didn't find much reliable sources. I am afraid that Worldbruce is right. But I request Worldbruce not be personal. Don't use some world that insults me or my country. You should be polite. One more thing thing I would like to say that there's more sources like the first one here and here, But It's truly impossible to find more information rather than just a list. A. Shohag 13:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems there is agreement that the article should now be deleted. There is clearly scope for articles on major inscriptions of the region, but this particular one (if it exists) is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I believe, it is. But the archaeological department is still working on the project. If research went on, It will be updated on web. But for right now they just listed it. A. Shohag 11:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, To the admin I request you to check what the sources said. And also as previously mentioned, If any research went on people very much likely will add text there. Thanks. A. Shohag 14:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's commendable that you've replaced the second and third references, which were irrelevant. However, you've replaced them with the same one-line list entry as the first source, just from other versions of the list on different websites. The same Department of Archaeology content duplicated in multiple places is counted as one source. And no matter how many times those five words are repeated, they still don't amount to significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 16:56, 13 August 2020 (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.