Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Abu Layth

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Abu Layth

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

Unremarkable academic. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG/WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if WP:PROF should really be used for Islamic scholars—that guideline is quite specific to the western system of higher education—but doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG either so the point is moot. – Joe (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing. No pass of WP:GNG or WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Whether we go by a Western or Islamic standard, the subject still doesn't pass WP:Prof, not to mention the WP:GNG. Of the three sources, two are the subject's own work and one is his facebook page. The individual is known for shameless self-promotion among Anglophone Muslims on social media, often hosting dinners for actual notable clerics, overwhelming them with requests for selfies, and shouting from the rooftops that they're close colleagues. This article seems like an attempt by the subject's cultlike followers to create buzz for their otherwise unheard of social media idol. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2017 (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.