Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shaikh
- 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. Cirt (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammad Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article on this subject was previously deleted at AfD. This new one was tagged WP:CSD#G4 as a repost; another admin and I both declined the speedy on the grounds that it was sufficiently different, and then changed our minds. On reconsideration I have now changed my mind again - the question is clearly debatable, so I have restored the new article and bring it back to AfD for a fresh look. I express no opinion, and have notified all those concerned in the earlier AfD. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete It is still an unbalanced praise article, written in jargon that presumes familiarity with various Muslim branches of thought, I would say unencyclopedic and little factual value, though I know this associates with WP:IDL. Article only cites primary sources influenced or written by the subject himself. Gbooks search [1] is diluted with other individuals with the same name. Google search indicates that he is inseparable from the institute he created "International Islamic Propagation Center" - e.g. the mention that he was shot in 2005 merely refers to him as a "cleric" of that institute. The institute broadcasts TV and could be assumed to pass WP:GNG in Pakistan, and might pass regular WP:N reqs for mention in the UK parliarment and a single book [2] on "Cyberworship" (no preview available). A solution could be to create a stub on International Islamic Propagation Center (currently a redlink) and redirect him there. I have no interest in the article myself. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean towards delete. It seems that there are no third party reliable sources with this guy as the subject of the article. Going on the titles of the sources, it seems that these are likely trivial mentions that don't go towards satisfying notability. If this discussion ends up as a delete in the end, I would recommend that the closing admin also salt the article considering the article's history (this would be the fifth or sixth deletion). SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero significant coverage in reliable sources ukexpat (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per the thorough analysis of Power.corrupts. I don't see much content here, only material that seems lifted from a press release/media guide. TNXMan 18:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to International Islamic Propagation Center, after substantial edit, per Power.corrupts --Cyclopiatalk 18:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as failing WP:N. Most of the sources given are connected with the subject's organization. If easily accessible reliable source coverage is demonstrated, I am willing to change my position. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: The sources given have been changed and aren't all connected to the organization, jargon removed and so is the tone of the text neutral. The article is meant to give factual description and not sell or endorse the subject. As it is my first attempt and more to follow suit, suggested guidance be given on ways to improve the entry to make it in line with policy, rather than an outright deletion. Thanks MessengerOfPeace (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete biographical article doesn't apply WP:N and fails WP:BIO. These references in the articles are not reliable enough. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:47, 30 November 2009 (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.