Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris Badruddin

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. Sandstein 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Badruddin[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 - several sources that mention Badruddin, but nothing that really focuses on them. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paraphrasing Robert McClenon from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huzaifa_Mohyuddin: The subject appears to have been the head of a major denomination within Shi'a Islam and should be considered ipso facto notable. (If the guidelines don't provide this notability, the policies should be revised.) Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murtaza.aliakbar, He's the son of the head, but he's not actually the head, is he? Ravensfire (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensfire, He's a Prince (Shahzada); besides, he does head multiple religious / temporal departments within the Dawat like the other Shahzadas. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murtaza.aliakbar so not the head at all, thank you. The dearth of secondary sources shows that's a very questionable argument to be making for notability. I'm getting the feel of a walled-garden here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire, so not the head at all What does head here mean to you? Does a Archbishop of Canterbury sound like a head to you? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England," show me the same thing in this article. From what I can tell, that would be the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Again, that would be his father, not him. Notability is not tranferrable, so looking at *this* article and at the sources, where is WP:GNG met? What are the top three sources that are independant of the [Dawoodi Bohras]], are a reliable source and focus on Badruddin? Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: From what I can tell, that would be the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Yes, The Hnbl. Archbishop would be equivalent to the Da'i al-Mutlaq, the Da'i's representative would be equal to Bishops of various Anglican Communions, and so: WP:BISHOP may apply. Notability is not inherited but that isn't the claim being made, since Badruddin heads a number of temporal and religious institutions including representing the Da'i al-Mutlaq in England [1]. The issue here is unearthing sources which are unlikely to be online and would invariably be found in first-party sources like Badre Muneer, Misbah, Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah, Alvazaratus Saifiyah and the like. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking for WP:CLERGY which calls out that bishops (or second tier leaders) in major faiths generally pass AFD's, but the faiths listed are substantially larger than Dawoodi Bohras, 50 million+ members in the faiths listed. In large part, that from in faiths that large being a bishop (or equivalent) does generally have coverage in secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above Sherenk1 (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through the discussion, it seems like the person is in a notable enough position to normally pass something like WP:BISHOP. Yet unfortunately also going by the discussions and the comments made by Murtaza.aliakbar, for instance the sources about him are "unlikely to be online and would invariably be found in first-party sources", he seems to fail WP:GNG. Also, I think the key word in that sentence is "unlikely." Which to me means "maybe" as in "maybe the sources aren't online", but more then likely online sources just can't be found because the person isn't notable. Not just because notable Islamic figures aren't discussed on the internet as the comment implies. Even if that were true though, there would still likely be references online to print content about him if he was notable. Which there doesn't seem to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa, time out here: WP:BISHOP isn't a notability criterion. It's a naming convention, which furthermore applies strictly to the use of such titles in article names for Western Christian bishops. (I would have liked to think that people would read the links before citing them.) As WP:CLERGY states, however, those with elevated church titles outside of "major denominations" -- the criterion citing the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican faiths, each with worshipers in the tens of millions -- do not presumptively qualify, and rest upon the GNG. That is not met here. Ravenswing 16:56, 24 August 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.