Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Fai zan 11:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Reason Faizanhb2 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2013 (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/2013 June 30. Snotbot t • c » 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No deletion rationale given. As a former member of a national assembly [1], subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. Plenty of substantial GNews hits also found. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly speedy given lack of rationale. Referenced article showing the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN #1. AllyD (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. His membership in the national assembly is well sourced in the article and gives him a clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elucidate which is this "single source" on which you claim the article relies? It is referenced to the BBC, Washington Times and Express Tribune among others. AllyD (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Faizanhb2, you are the nominator so you don't get to add a supporting view. I have struck your delete. AllyD (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Trying to assume good faith, but there appears to be some kind of Sufi disagreement going on here about which subject I do not know enough to comment further. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In what way does "Very controversial person" support an argument for non-notability? That is that matter at hand here, not whether one agrees or disagrees with a person. AllyD (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you like to be more specific? The links to the BBC, Washington Times and Express Tribune references are working perfectly. Are you (and the previous SPA) arguing that all of these are unreliable sources? AllyD (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the similarly unusual styles of various views above, some from established editors but some not, it is worth reminding people of the WP:SOCK policy. AllyD (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep Clearly and unambiguously notable under our basic criteria for politicians, being in a legislature. Even were he not, his well -cited political campaigns would have qualified him as notable by the GNG I can;t judge the importance of his books, but they're probably enough to make him notable under WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROFESSOR. I see very little here I would call promotional.The only thing that seems controversial is that the article express his political opinions, as it ought to, and some people strongly disagree with those opinions. That is not of course a reason for deletion, though if there are some well sourced evaluations from different points of view, they could be added. The deletion arguments adduce false claims, but what are they? The refs are claimed to be not working . The 15 I checked at random worked fine. About half are from his own organization's sources, but at least a dozen are major neutral news stories from respected. And, frankly, I am unable to figure out from the discussion page what the fuss is about, or what particular positions or facts are being challenged. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong KEEP, this is a public figure and active politician in Pakistan as per quoted sources. The "delete" votes above all seem to come from socks of the nominating user. An SPI case is opened anyway. kashmiri ^TALK 09:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A single sock is destroying all the process. Pointless nomination, such a famous scholar, Speedy Keep. Fai zan 10:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WTF keep Why does this AfD even exist? Mar4d (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2013 (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.