Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Ebrahim Desai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable mufti - article is currently an unsourced coatrack to get some random fatwa's and someone else's opinion about rape in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly note: The article was discovered to contain copyright issues, so major parts of the biography/article was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 and 2 minutes at 21:22, 24 November 2009 later somebody is insisting it is a coatrack. The article is a stub, but not a coatrack. But obviously it will take time to rebuild the article using other references. The opinon on rape is cited from the fatwa of the mufti and not "someone else's" so any such claims are false. Fragma08 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep his fatwa regarding rape seems to have gotten a fair bit of media coverage. - Schrandit (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to media coverage. The article needs to be built up again, with better sources and no plagiarism. CarolineWH (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and clean-up. Also agree that someone's own words or fatwa can certainly be cited on a BLP, thus the issue becomes writing it NPOV. The rape content should be reworked to note who thinks his rape opinions are notable and why. Keep it dispassionate as Wikipedia follows sources, not the other way around. We should avoid even the appearance of judgment. -- Banjeboi 00:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Per all of the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just about Keep but clean up. I'm not that convinced about the level of coverage, but it probably scrapes thorugh. However, at the moment the article does seem to be a coatrack about a specific issue he has commented on (the news coverage in the article is regarding a different muslim cleric). We can discuss his comments regarding rape, but only if this is done in reliable sources. Looking through the news results I could not actually see any coverage of this issue, so it simply shouldn't be there. Quantpole (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the article is not a coat rack Do look at the discussions to see that it was a lengthy biography yesterday but due to copyright issues, major parts of the biography was removed leaving only a stub. So now to call it coatrack is simply invalid and defies all logic. Allow time for the article to be built up. The source does not get any more reliable than the fatwa itself from the mufti himself. To expect other muftis to back up this mufti is like expecting consensus across religion when in fact there are many sectarian difference and so any consensus would be hard to achieve which is why talk of secondary or back up references is irrelevant.Fragma08 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not whether the info is verifiable. It is that if it has not been covered by other sources it is not notable. The only reason I have voted keep here is that there does appear to be some coverage. However, none of this coverage is regarding his comments regarding rape. I have therefore removed this section from the article. If reliable sources are found that show this is noteworthy, then we can include it. Quantpole (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is the case of religious fatwas (edicts if you like)and not like other publicised work and so to ask for other sources to cover one mufti's fatwa would be unrealistic. Religion is split into sects and subsects so asking for others for verification or consensus, can not be done. Which is why it can stand alone as notable. You will find similar pattern under other scholars' articles therefore the information needs to stay but the biography and work need to be built on. But I will work on finding more sources. Fragma08 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not relevent what the information is. It needs independent coverage (which does not have to be other scholars backing him up). I could issue a fatwa today but that wouldn't be notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the same could be said of the mufti himself then and in fact all muftis unless their names frequently circulate the media or they are used as spokepeople for various issues. In which case majority of the articles on wiki could be claimed to be not notable and deleted. The fatwa and the fatwa website is used by various people and not just the deobandi community, mind you. It is impossible to cover varous fatwas especially when they don't play a role in your life.Fragma08 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not relevent what the information is. It needs independent coverage (which does not have to be other scholars backing him up). I could issue a fatwa today but that wouldn't be notable. Quantpole (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is the case of religious fatwas (edicts if you like)and not like other publicised work and so to ask for other sources to cover one mufti's fatwa would be unrealistic. Religion is split into sects and subsects so asking for others for verification or consensus, can not be done. Which is why it can stand alone as notable. You will find similar pattern under other scholars' articles therefore the information needs to stay but the biography and work need to be built on. But I will work on finding more sources. Fragma08 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not whether the info is verifiable. It is that if it has not been covered by other sources it is not notable. The only reason I have voted keep here is that there does appear to be some coverage. However, none of this coverage is regarding his comments regarding rape. I have therefore removed this section from the article. If reliable sources are found that show this is noteworthy, then we can include it. Quantpole (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Article Rescue Squad! What media convereage are you referring to? Hipocrite (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click on Google news link up top, and do some reading. Clearly notable. And the article does mention references... I see the rape part is currently out of it, despite having references, this what the guy was getting news coverage for, and thus it should be in the article. Dream Focus 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you point to the coverage he has received regarding those particular opinions, because I could not see it. I am quite willing to admit I am wrong, and if it has been covered then it is right to be in the article. Quantpole (talk) 09:09, 26 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.