Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Siddique Dar

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. We cannot judge spiritual importance,only documentable evidence that the person is an important religious leader. This is not adequate here. Such problems may prevent adequate coverage of this field, but we are limited by WP:V, which is one of he basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Siddique Dar[edit]

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

No indications of significance, even less notability. The article subject is supposedly a successor in a practically unknown religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. The person has no independent presence on the English internet - the article is entirely self-sourced, and just like other articles created by the same editor (Abdul Hakim Ansari, Tauheediyah, Muhammad Hanif Khan), seems to simply promote or legitimise the said religious group. I suggest deletion per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NBIO (including WP:ANYBIO). — kashmiri ^TALK 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to have to second the comparison here to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari. Promotional articles on obscure South Asian religious figures is extremely common on the encyclopedia, and almost every instance shares a few constants such as poor writing, re-citing the same source over and over to inflate the references, and asserting little notability about the subjects other than that they were good people. Like the others, this article fails the WP:GNG on the most basic level. The fact that the subject's supposed notoriety revolves around the above mentioned deleted articles also severely damages any possible claims of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? There are only two sources on this article, from the same author...which is YOU. You've created an entire article citing only your own apparently self-published sources, which seems like a major conflict with WP:SELFCITE. Also, you basically copied most of your comment here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hanif Khan, which you also did on the last two AfDs about two related articles you created (which were ultimately deleted). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding new references to strengthen contents. I do it shortly may be in next week after holidays. I don't think there is any violation of WP:SELFCITE provisions. If there, point out please to improve further. Yes i copied almost similar comments on both pages because i think both pages are in discussion due to almost similar problems. Your good suggestions are appreciated. Thank you for help.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page is according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Improvements are part of the game. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. --Majora (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of books, editor in chief of a printed magazine that is being published in 17 years, translator of books, shakh or head in spiritual chain as saint, shrine and ceremonials after death, having highest awards from his armed forces head of country 'Chief of Air Staff Commendation Certificate' and from president of a country Pakistan ‘Tamgha-i-Khidmat - II’ ( WP:MILPEOPLE – If person has one highest award. He has two highest awards.) are supportive to his notability. If independent sources are not available on him as ‘saint’ it is not only the case in biographies of saints. High award winners always get published and discussed in departmental and national media. - 182.187.38.242 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — 182.187.38.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current sourcing is still not to the level of convincing thus, this could actually be Drafted if needed, but at this time, there's nothing particularly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 12 July 2016 (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.