Talk:Abdul Qadir Jilani (Pakistani scholar)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a person, but which fails to assert the importance of its subject, because it is a biography of a living person - my sheikh. It is a true depiction of the facts.--Munibhussain (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedy deleted because the reason for deletion is invalid and unclear. The Sheikh is much revered and all that has been stated in the article is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munibhussain (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Much revered", perhaps, but as it seems he is also a promoter of terrorism caution should be exercised in affording him publicity.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability
Please consult the document concerning notability of people here: WP:BIO. This explains the standards by which Wikipedia establishes notability. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that to be eligible for deletion under WP:CSD A7 the article must not make any claim of importance, to delete an article on notability grounds requires a proposed deletion or an Articles for Deletion nomination. Monty  845  04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ofcom ruling
I have reinstated this. It was deleted by user 5.68.240.84 on 5 February without comment. If Jilani is notable at all, then I think this ruling is certainly worthy of mention. SDavies (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why refer to Jilani having "made comments with reference to the shooting dead in early 2011 of the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer" without saying what the comments were - at least in general terms. A complaint would not be made about him having "made comments", it was what he said that must have caused concern to some.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The comments were fairly long, from memory. The subsequent text in this section makes clear why the comments were controversial. But I wouldn't object to you adding a summary of the comments if you think appropriate. 	--SDavies (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)