Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Intezamullah Shahabi

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) 03:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Intezamullah Shahabi

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to support the notability of this person, whose article has been tagged for notability for some time now. Epeefleche (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept then the honorific, "mufti", should be dropped from the article title, and this seems to be a more common romanization of the subject's name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'm sure there are other possible spellings. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article does not establish notability - except possibly to a Pakistani or other Urdu speaker. However, the (admittedly still few) references brought up by Phil Bridger's alternative search term produce several citations of historical works by him in Urdu - enough to suggest, while online recent sources in English have very little of use to say, a trawl through offline sources in Urdu from several decades back (when he was writing) might well establish his notability comfortably. The question, I suspect, is whether there is, or is likely to be in the foreseeable future, anyone able and willing to do such a trawl. Oh, and if the article is kept, move it per Phil Bridger. PWilkinson (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. I found 0 zero results on both Google and Yahoo except for Facebook page. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2011 (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.