Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Sadeq Desai


 * 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  08:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Ahmad Sadeq Desai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I couldn't find any sources Edidiong (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete terms are thrown aroound with no clear definitions. It is unclear to me if Desai is a Salafist, or if he closely the mass of Islamic scholarly work and condemns those who go against it, in which case he may infact dislike Salafists just as much as those who introduce changes in the name of some form of "progress" or "liberalism". The article uses contentious terms, complete with scare quotes, without ever giving us a sense of what they actual mean. Then it lacks any working links. Beyond this we get no sense of what his works actually are, and no indication that they have an impact in any field of academic study, have the level of following that would make him a notable writer, or that he is seen as an active religious leader or theologian in a way that would make him notable. With having an article on Ulisses Soares, a man sustained as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and thus looked to at one of the top worldwide interpretors of Doctrine, by a Church with 16 million members, gone through a deletion discussion, it is clear we are no where near having a good way to define religious notability. The basic problem is that different Churches uses the same term differently, so that no one term is default a sign of notability. An Apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly, without question notable. I would argue the same for all LDS general authorities. I have never gotten an actual consensus on this fact. A Catholic Cardinal is most likely notable, and there is a consensus that they are, but from any coherent analysis of doctinal and religious function, while many recent cardinals clearly are notable, it is not clear if everyone who has ever been appointed Cardinal would pass a coherent notability standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is generally accepted that every Catholic bishop is notable. The level of sourcing in some of the articles we have makes me less than sure of this. I can see a clear argument that every Catholic bishop in the US, and in most of Europe, Latin American and even Africa is notable. Some African countries more so. The fact that our stats of say the Diocese of Ogoja in Nigeria are 14 years old makes it hard to say how relevant the diocese size of 332,000 Catholics is. From 2005 or so to the present in Sierra Leone LDS Church membership has gone from about 5,000 to about 20,000. This despite the fact the Church had no missionaries in the country during the Ebola epidemic. I have no clue if Catholic growth rates in Nigeria, from both conversions and natural population growth, and possible migrations especially within the country, would mean in a similar time the Ogoja diocese has risen to about 1,200,000. I have my doubts the growth has been that significant, but could it have been 50% growth? Has the 20% of the population that is Catholic in Ogoja Diocese held steady, risen, or fallen? What I do know is that in 2004 the Diocese of Ogoja had about 50% more Catholics in it than the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing. Yet we have articles on every person to serve as bishop of Lansing, and none on bishops of Ogoja.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Catholic bishops are notable for the most part. Mormon bishops however are local leaders of congregations, which rarely have more than 500 members and often significantly fewer, and so are no where near notable for that. The Amish also have bishop as the title of local congregation leaders. In Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches bishops are pretty much default notable. This has been argued for Churches in the Anglican and Luthernan Tradition, but I am a little less convinced, considering how small some especially Episcopalian dioceses are in terms of numbers of congregants. In Pentacostal Traditions and some other groups that are more or less part of Evangelical Protestantism, bishop tends towards being a title given on at times an almost ad hoc basis to well respected pastors or those who lead large congregations. A few who lead megachurchs, such as Keith Butler(Michigan politician) with his 22,000 congregant Mega Church, might be notable as a religious leader. However the article as we have it now streeses his role as a political figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is a bit tricky for religious leaders or crusaders that is why i brought it here. As you said, the page lacks any working link and talk less a reliable source. At this present stage there's nothing to prove notability. Edidiong (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I clarified the article. Theclaim in the current version is that he is the founder of the conservative "The Majis" website in South Africa.  DGG ( talk ) 12:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - so | General consideration probably isn't a suitable source it gives a helpful overview, including suggesting a few places to look on the issue. We seem to have three possible routes for notability - religious leader, academic and a pseudo-political role. I think the nom's thoughts that academic is probably the correct primary grounds are legitimate, though I could be convinced otherwise. The same author has an article | here if someone has access, but since it's only cited by himself it wouldn't seem the most reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no claims of notability nor any working references for this recently-created article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.