Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Rahim Dard

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahim Dard[edit]

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

I do not see and find any cited sources that pass: per notability- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject does not pass the criteria to be considered notable. Justice007 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Seriously? I am staggered In ictu oculi (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in "Political Awakening in Kashmir" by Ravinderjit Kaur; Journal:Social and Cultural Geography, "The mosque in the suburbs: Negotiating religion and ethnicity in South London" by Simon Naylor & James R. Ryan; "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" Vol 3, by Prakash K. Singh (which incidentally discusses the interaction between Dard and Jinnah in London); "Connivance by Silence" by Arif Humayun; and a number of international publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Besides, he was an early Muslim missionary in Britian, without the mention of which a history of Islam in Britain cannot be completed. Clearly a notable individual.--Peace world 10:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources in which the subject has received significant coverage, but I do not see if you have any of that provide and cite to the content, just telling he is notable does not work here, it is only voting, we should avoid that.Justice007 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and which sources are not reliable?--Peace world 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All eight cited sources are not reliable sources, you are not a newbie, you should know the basic rules. All sources are the websites or books written by the subject even not significant coverage in that sources. Please read thoroughly reliable sources what say, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was asking about the sources I mentioned above, but you are responding for the current sources cited in the article. Nevertheless, the claim "All sources are the websites or books" is not even true.--Peace world 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there is likely coverage but not easily accessible therefore familiar attention is needed (as with most articles of this subject) and my searches found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No matter whatever the consensus is, I am respecting and describing the rules. I do not demonstrate my personal rules. I do not see and find the significant coverage of the subject except trivial mentioning name of the subject even not that you suggested in your keep comment. If you have that, please provide and cite.Justice007 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. And I was born yesterday. What we have here is a textbook example of an orthdox muslim attacking an Ahmadi muslim's bio. When sources are added to the article User Justice 007 deletes them In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi In ictu oculi, please mind your language and read civility and personal attacks. I deleted no any sources, and nor you added there any. You should discuss the policies and prove, and cite reliable sources rather blaming and accusing other editors. It is not the way to contribute the WIkipedia.Justice007 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?. You removed some sources, then you put up the article for deletion? Sunday Times is considered a reliable source, which you removed.--Peace world 14:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not see that, I thought that was a just citation and same sources are also elsewhere cited that's why we cite sources per link rot. It was not deliberately removed even one cannot access the sources reliability. the Quote needs authentic sources, not just the news because there are doubts.Justice007 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justice007 I call it as I see it - you clearly deleted sources in more than one edit. And then repeatedly added a sources tag? The only reason to go after this bio is because the subject is not the same sort of Islam. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, your thoughts are very poor and awkward, and second, we should discuss the deletion, you cannot see the heart and mind of anyone. I will be happy to save the article, and improve if the reliable sources are there. Just for your information, I created the article Haider Qureshi that rejects your wrong illusions about others.Justice007 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reference to your doubt?--Peace world 16:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss other dispute on the article talk page if you want that. It is not the place to discuss other issues here except the deletion.Justice007 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting reliable sources in the course of trying to get an article AFDed is clearly not acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readded mistakenly removed sources that do not establish the notability too. That were only the support to the Quote.Justice007 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No matter what the outcome of this deletion discussion is, but in my view what the rules say subject does not pass the notability, I see only the voting rather proving, and providing reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. I see none of those.Justice007 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Seriously? I copy pasted these from the first comment. I find that snowballs have a BETTER chance of enjoying hell than this being deleted lol. One of the most laughable AFD discussions I have ever seen, what a joke!. I hope this is speedy kept as soon as possible. All that aside, there is considerable notability here so what was the reason for AFD? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources establish notability, would you mind to indicate if there is significant coverage of the subject, just tell me one. Justice007 (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just copy and past peaceworlds comment since you seem to have overlooked that. He said "Mentioned in "Political Awakening in Kashmir" by Ravinderjit Kaur; Journal:Social and Cultural Geography, "The mosque in the suburbs: Negotiating religion and ethnicity in South London" by Simon Naylor & James R. Ryan; "Encyclopaedia on Jinnah" Vol 3, by Prakash K. Singh (which incidentally discusses the interaction between Dard and Jinnah in London); "Connivance by Silence" by Arif Humayun; and a number of international publications of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. Besides, he was an early Muslim missionary in Britian, without the mention of which a history of Islam in Britain cannot be completed. Clearly a notable individual.". See there are more than enough sources here to establish a high degree of notability. Furthermore, even if there are not a thousand sources, even then the sources in the article are enough to establish notability. YES, it is not a GA but that doesn't mean that you go around deleting every article that isnt a GA. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an event or mentioning the name and few lines does not establish the notability, nor trivial sources. I want to see significant coverage of the subject that how and why he is notable.Justice007 (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage. If you can just drop the shtick you will be able to see it. Anyway, seeing that this is a snowball keep there is no reason for me to debate any further with you as you seem unable to grasp the meaning of notable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. (Note: brought here from another discussion.) First of all, let's be respectful and refrain from personal attacks. Secondly, I see a lot of personal opinions here but not much actual data presented by those defending the article. It would be helpful if the detailed coverage from reliable scholarly sources (with quotes and all) can be posted here so that we can analyze the material and judge notability based on the data, rather than relying on subjective personal opinions alone.

I'll help the defending side by following my own advice, and start by citing some coverage on Dard I found: https://books.google.ca/books?id=fLCCbohBKzcC&pg=PA156&dq=Abdul+Rahim+Dard&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Abdul%20Rahim%20Dard&f=false). In this source, Dard is cited as the secretary of the All India Kashmir Committee. He is mentioned as trying to encourage the maharaja to accept his request for mediation in the kashmir situation (pre partition), and the maharaja did not accept his request. I couldn't really find much else on this guy, but I urge other participants here to take the lead (the burden is on those defending the article) and post relevant 3rd party coverage, while keeping in mind the following requirements in the notability guideline:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

This will also help the article because if said sources can be collected, they can easily and quickly be integrated into the article to improve it (or perhaps spawn a sister article on A.R. Dard which details his accomplishments and/or ideas etc.) I think we can all agree that would be a good thing, as it will solve this current problem defacto, and also expand the content. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking them that since nomination for deletion, but they are imposing what they like. If there are sources even one that significantly covers the subject, I will be happy to improve the article.Justice007 (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW, sources are certainly not difficult to find, I have added some ~10-15 {{cite book}}s, and notability well above WP:BASIC is unquestionable. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:21, 3 October 2015 (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.