Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Jameel (2nd nomination)

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. Deor (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Jameel[edit]

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

The article was nominated for deletion for a lack of reliable third-party sources in 2013. Since then significant amounts of unsourced content have been removed, but no additional sources have been provided. The Urdu article doesn't cite any, and my own search didn't turn up anything remotely useful either. Despite claims of fame I see no indication that the subject actually meets WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the case for notability is weak. He has a lot of youtube clips and blogs mention him, but that's mainly it. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a typical case of lack of online online coverage of Pakistani topics). References were hard to find from the automatically tagged resources with the article title on top, but a manual search finds reliable sources both in book and Pakistani mainstream media. Duniya TV, a mainstream TV channel, rediff], [1], [2], book1, book2, book 3. Some other sources that I suspected to be potential mirrors of wikipedia, I have not listed. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see any problem with notability. A Google search shows numerous web-pages hosting his lectures that confirm his popularity. A typical search, as it appears, pathetically shows only audio- and video-hosting sites. But as noted above by User:TopGun, a customized search indeed yields good results. Hard-pressed by time, yet I'll try to add content permitted by sources. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is quite notable as a scholar. More sources would be available in Urdu than in English, I'd say. Mar4d (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This analysis doesn't seem to be correct. If you search youtube or google you would find 100s of resources on Tariq jamil (It may come as Molana Tariq Jamil, Molana Tariq Jameel or other different spellings as the original name is in Arabic/ Urdu. On my website, http://www.australianislamiclibrary.org/urdu-bayan.html, Australian Islamic Library, i have gathered his 150 lectures. You can also see the public attending this. There is absolutely no doubt about Molana Tariq Jamil's fame. I haven't read the wiki article itself, but page is definitely worth standing. Regards,Nabeel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelsahab (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person is notable. Due to lack of online English resources, the content that poses threat to the person should be removed but the article should be kept. SAMI ^talk 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As said before issue of lack of online coverage of Pakistani related articles, The scholar himself is quite less media frenzy in terms of interviews etc but well known because of his sermons and has quite a fan following. Although may not be a criteria for notability but his page view stats of just last 90 days shows quite some views. ow@!s (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only looked at the discussion and article this morning, so I don't know what the article looked like before. As of now, it seems to be reliably sources to the extent that significant, worldwide coverage of the person is established. I am usually a deletionist on biographies of subcontinent figures, though in this case the language barrier could have been a cause of earlier doubt regarding notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2014 (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.