Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Hussain Farooqui

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hussain Farooqui[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)

Fails WP:GNG, all I find are passing mentions and self-published works. Most of the content is effectively unsourced or WP:PRIMARY. Kleuske (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not very many Manchester Muslim religious figures have an academic journal article about them, a broadsheet source and a council-political page, these should be enough for notability, its simply bringing what is in the domain together

The broadsheet sources is a passing mention and none of the other sources meet WP:NOTABILITY: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Kleuske (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One I.B Tauris academic chapter in a book is definitely independent and should be enough in itself.

Please use either the sign button or four ~ to sign your posts so people know who said what. Thank you, ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article tries to make Farooqui more prominent than he is. Having a member of a city council in your congregation is not a default sign of notability. If it were, we could propel thousands of more people to notability, especially if we applied this rule in a non-presentist fashion. The gaurdian article makes only passing mention of Farooqui. The claims about the significance and impact of academic coverage do not seem to take into account the actual level of this coverage in relation to others. As written the article currently is a major violation of BLP polices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much here beyond being arrested and released (no charge) in 2009. A few bits and ends in a BEFORE - but not rising to GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - non notable, doesn't meet criteria. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about reverting to a simple article on the khanqah naqshbandia building, the former warehouse referred to?
Speedy Delete per John Pack Lambert Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various CCS', so not a speedy delete, but not sufficient coverage to build a BLP and pass BASIC/GNG. Delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 10:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-speedy delete is fine too, but there was a major BLP violation that I removed. (Something that shouldn't be repeated as it proved to be an unsubstantiated allegation that wasn't even verified by the cited source). It doesn't seem like he is otherwise notable so I still support deletion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that one source doesn't make it up. Fails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:09, 6 July 2018 (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.