Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliasgar Kalimuddin


 * 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. Salvio 21:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Aliasgar Kalimuddin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod was disputed; no third-party coverage indicating how this individual is notable; as far as I can tell, they are a rector or advisor to a spiritual leader, but there's no indication of how that position is notable in itself. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete regretfully, per nom. None of the sources focus on Kalimuddin, just mentions in passing.  The main editor for this article keeps adding in unsourced material for this article which isn't helping. Nearly every article they've created has been moved to draft space for sourcing and notability issues.  This is just an example of why.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom  -- Devokewater  (&#x1F989; talk talk&#x1F989;) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Against deletion: I'm the second largest contributor to the page and I've tried hard to source information on Aliasgar Kalimuddin. In readily available online sources, Kalimuddin is mentioned in the passing, but a linked source, Badre Muneer, has a profile on him which has been cited in the article. The magazine issue in question is available for purchase online. With regards to another user flouting Wikipedia policies, that is unfortunate, and it is a constant theme in all their contributions so far. May be they ought to be barred from editing the page rather than them being a reason to delete the page, which has enough sources and material even though it isn't a stellar article or anything. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Badre Muneer is described as a magazine published "for the Dawoodi Bohra Community." As such, it's questionable if that would qualify under WP:SIGCOV. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been nominated for deletion not for notability but for unsourced claims. As for notability, because Kalimuddin is second in command to Mufaddal Saifuddin, that may qualify his page as encyclopedically important enough, though I'm sure it doesn't meet all of Wikipedia's notability criteria (but then again, does it deserve deletion?). Also, I believe context matters: Badre Muneer is one of the few or the only publically published magazine for and by the Dawoodi Bohra community, and so, by extension, it is most likely to profile the leaders within the community, and hence the citation in absence of other sources. Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah library has publications on him and by him that I'm trying to source, but no luck so far.Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: For WP:SIGCOV, also see this: Robert McClenon's comment at 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) 11:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Unless I'm missing something, Kalimuddin is not the head of the sect, but rather is one of several deputies to the head. I'd agree that the head of a major sect is ipso facto notable, but I don't believe that extends to deputy positions. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Not "one of the several", but "one of the two". And if you'd notice, ipso facto was invoked by Robert McClenon on Shahzada (prince) Huzaifa Mohyuddin who wasn't a Mazoon or a Mukasir. Besides, Aliasgar Kalimuddin is a Shahzada (prince) himself, by virtue of being one of the 12 sons of the 51st Da'i al-Mutlaq, Taher Saifuddin. I guess, what I am trying to say here is, if WP:IPSOFACTO applies to Huzaifa Mohyuddin, then it absolutely applies to Aliasgar Kalimuddin. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If Huzaifa Mohyuddin was not "head of a major sect," then perhaps the commenter in that AfD misread the article. The fundamental question is, in the absence of WP:SIGCOV, are we saying that deputies (or princes) of a sect of 1 million people are automatically notable notable? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Princes (Shahzada) and the Deputies do hold a position of importance within the Ismaili framework. Head of a sect or not, Aliasgar Kalimuddin (and Huzaifa Mohyuddin) are an ipso facto criterion for notability, because they have had a particular achievement, honor, status, or position. In Aliasgar Kalimuddin's case, he was given Key to the city of La Possession, and his status as a second-in-command to Mufaddal Saifuddin warrants notability. The followers of the Dawoodi Bohra being 1 million or 2 million or 5 million is besides the point, I feel. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose Deletion - Enough sources have been establishes. His importance in Dawoodi Bohra Community is recognized Sherenk1 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Ravensfire. None of the sources discuss the subject directly and in-depth. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.  // Timothy ::  talk  04:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What we have to guide us are the notability guidelines. The subject does not pass. The number of followers (YouTube, Twitter, adherent, etc.) are not benchmarks. Inclusion in reliable, independent sources is. Ifnord (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (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.