Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mawlana As-Sayed Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana As-Sayed Shaykh Nurjan Mirahmadi[edit]

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

Article created by a WP:SPA. It is almost verbatim taken from Mirahmadi's homepage. It is sourced only by it's own homepage, it's own youtube-vids, and a self-published book. Hardly any links to other articles. No Google-hits apart from wikipedia and his own website. Thus, there are concerns for WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been created earlier this year, and will take some time to be referenced in other articles. Shaykh Nurjan is a prominent figure of the Naqshbandi tariqa, and Naqshbandi tariqa has been around for many centuries. Stop sabotaging articles of people you don't like. staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you encounter copyvio, please remove it immediately rather than waiting for AfD decisions. Articles of people reliably identified as notable can be stubified if copyvios demand it. Samsara 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Google hits aside from websites associated with him. This is a vanity bio page apparently created and obsessively maintained -- in violation of Wikipedia policies -- by an editor or two who seem to be followers. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear vanity page with no reference to WP:RS. The SPA argument for keeping seems to be a mere mixture of WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, and WP:VALINFO. WP:INSPECTOR does not apply as removing the non-sourced material to comply with WP:BLP would not leave even a stub that could be further improved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete GorgeCustersSabre is falsely claiming that there are no Google hits aside from websites associated with him. How about these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5zflmWMKSc ----> which aired on national television in Canada on JoyTV, and Shaykh has had many interviews with him http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4902657/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm http://www.naqshbandi.asn.au/meditation.html https://books.google.ca/books?id=V8AvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=nurjan+mirahmadi&source=bl&ots=TGTncf2KiF&sig=zBxRGmBDFdbEHoXP6u3K_u_VmT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY8ZnUuvzQAhVI1GMKHezdBVU4HhDoAQgdMAE#v=onepage&q=nurjan%20mirahmadi&f=false https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5zflmWMKSc http://eshaykh.com/sufism/silent-zikr/ https://mistikus-sufi.blogspot.ca/2014/04/tanda-tanda-kedatangan-imam-mahdi-as.html

Please don't make up lies just because you want to see a page deleted.Staffsmcav (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (PST)

Comment User:Staffsmcav, I would suggest you refer to these guidelines: WP:GHITS and WP:RS to understand why User:GorgeCustersSabre said what he did. He did not ""make up lies." On the contrary, he posted an evaluation of the sources in the article that is fully in keeping with previously-established policy. The links you post above don't change anything. If anything, they endorse his characterization. They are, by and large, social media sites or are self-published (such as the book you linked). I also suggest you read this essay and also pay close attention to this core policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do a google book search and see how many books make reference to his book. He didn't publish all the other books.

https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=nurjan+mirahmadi

Also let's look at the JoyTV interview. JoyTV is not a social media site, it's actually a channel on television and broadcasts nationally to Canada.

If you really think the article isn't in line with previous-established policy, why don't you fix it? Rather than outright deleting the whole article. From what I've seen, George and Jeff just came in there and deleted more than 5000 words about his early bio and career.

staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also for WP refernce, here are some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Kabbani <--- first paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muraqaba

staffsmcav —Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

staffsmcav, I suspect you aren't going to like what I have to say, but I believe you deserve an answer. First of all, I did do a Google Books search, and I'm afraid that is of little help. The books that are available fall into one of four categories: A)books by the article subject which have not received reviews or larger notice as our guideline on authors requests, B)self-published works, both by the article subject and about him, C)passing mentions or bare citations, and D)incorrect links to a different person. These are not helpful to the discussion.

Secondly, about the JoyTV interview, we don't have any way of verifying that is true. The only link is to a YouTube video, and no other editor can tell that JoyTV aired it. Even then, JoyTV was apparently a "network" of only two stations, which did not have a national footprint.

Thirdly, about fixing the article, I don't think there is anything to fix. The only significant coverage is from non-independent sources. Fixing the article would mean removing that material. The resulting article would be nothing more than the infobox with his picture and a leed that had his name and little more. It would not be an article, in other words.

I could go on, but I think you are beginning to get the gist. The fact remains: despite being called "world renowned" editors trying to find reasonable evidence of that renown are finding little to none. If there was such evidence, and I again refer you to my previous links to policies and guidelines on what form such evidence would take, I would certainly change my opinion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on social media posts, the subject of the article appears to be a real person who exists. Beyond that, nothing can be reliably or verifiably established by even a single acceptable source. Were it not for the obvious edit warring on the part of the article's creator, this would have been a great candidate for speedy deletion. This article is an obvious WP:PROMOTION violation in regard to yet another non-notable Muslim religious figure whose fans are trying to exploit Wikipedia as a free advertising banner. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

staffsmcav - I sincerely wish to apologize for my actions. I misunderstood what was being requested. Please don't delete the page. Can we work together to make the page in accordance with wikipedia policy that would be acceptable for all stakeholders? I would be willing to Again my sincere apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.149.80 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear staffsmcav, you misunderstand what is happening. You have been edit warring and violating many Wikipedia policies, but right now we have set that aside and are just assessing whether this Nurjan Mirahmadi page should remain on Wikipedia based on its own merits or demerits. Right now I suspect it will not survive this process given that it contains few or no third-party RS, lacks neutrality and does not establish the notability of the subject. But I repeat: this process is not about the nature of your edits (so an apology is appreciated but not relevant); its about the page itself. Yours, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Being obviously written by a devotee, the article fails to offer a neutral and objective point of view on its subject; while lack of reliable sources makes it impossible to improve it. As it stands, the article thus carries little to none encyclopaedic value. Hence, Delete. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I cut the page down to what jeff5102 originally want it to be. The page is not suppose to be a promotional page, it is to provide information on Naqshbandi representative in North America. Naqshbandi is a major school of Sunni Islam spirituality studies. Staffsmcav 19:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Staffsmcav, the point of this Articles for Deletion page is not to decide whether the As-Sayed Nurjan Mirahmadi article should be presented in a certain way -- ie, the way that Jeff5102, you or I might want it -- but to form a collective view, with the input of editors, about whether the article is worth keeping on Wikipedia at all or should be deleted. The process won't take much longer, I think. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a contemporary Canadian person, so if he is notable he ought be mentioned in Canadian newspaper articles, or maybe in articles in foreign newspapers. He is not. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a television program that airs on joy tv which broadcasts across canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joytv). This is the show's page: http://www.joytv.ca/shows/harpreet-singh-show/

And on youtube you can see a recording of the previous interviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfEX9Fdd9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sfEX9Fdd9s

Again these are not videos uploaded only on youtube. They're copies of what was aired on joy tv. Staffsmcav (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant biographical coverage in independent reliable sources. The aim of the notability guideline is to ensure that enough content can be written and sourced reliably. An interview like posted above does not fulfil the criterion of "significant coverage", because it hardly gives any biographical information. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2016 (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.