Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf

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. There is a clear consensus that this is not notable and needs salting. I will be ECP this name. If there are other names that pop-up please leave me a message on my talk page (but reference this I get forgetful about stuff) and I'll be happy to deal with it. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Hashmi Ashraf[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Placed in mainspace for 2nd time by WP:SOCK after declined WP:AFC. WP:AFC has a slightly higher bar than WP:AFD so may be survivable. Probably/possibly WP:G5 eligible however I am not complete sure that an article is unwarranted. Unclear if notability has been established, the WP:CITEBOMB on international conferences spoken at seems insufficient by itself per WP:NACADEMIC and may be WP:A7 eligible for failure to demonstrate notability. Poor embellishment of citations does not help .... If an article is to be citebombed by foreign languauge citations that are needed for notability then the key ones in particular need full embellishment and perhaps pointing one on the talk page. If retained article and any redirects need to be salted. Given interest on SOCKs on this article closers may need to tkae that into account for !votes from IPs and newly created accounts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The call for A7 seems to misunderstand when A7 applies, but the fact that this has been repeatedly resubmitted by sockpuppets while sidestepping an AfC decline looks bad for this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering putting this up for deletion myself. I thought there might be notability as an author, but the article makes no real claim of notability and the whole thing us refbombed with junk. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Userfy by moving to User:Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah/Sandbox2 (thus preserving the article history). If this man is as notable as the many citations to sources in Indian languages suggests, it is surprising that there are no articles on him in other languages Wikipedias. There does not seem to be any evidence of his notability in English.
But, there is a very good reason for preserving the article history. That anyone would want to spend their time improving this article appears to be very strong evidence that they are a sockpuppet, either of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah or someone else. This article is like sockpuppet flypaper. Wikipedia needs it (just not in article space).-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(nom) I'm on the same track as you with the keeping of the article and attribution history visible, not exactly sure how and where though. It's also necessary to still salt the names (though there are so many variations of some of these names it is nightmare). I could have draftified myself but draftication without salting is pointless in this case: and it also gives opportunity for a case to be made for mainspace retention by someone.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2020 (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.