Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bari Imam


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.    Sandstein   08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bari Imam

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The current article lacks a clear assertion of notability and has no reliable sourcing. I am not familiar enough with the subject to determine if it is a salvageable topic or not, but currently it's largely a coatrack for the various Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi fanatics that have been trying to spread the word via Wikipedia. (Article creator,, is the "Press & Information Secretary" for Shahi's organization.) &mdash; Scientizzle 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   —&mdash; Scientizzle 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News and Google Books searches reveal plenty of reliable sources that show notability. If the article id being used as a coatrack that is a content issue to be resolved by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Bari Imam shrine - all of the sources linked to above are discussing the 'Bari Imam shrine,' which does indeed appear notable, although the notability of Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi himself has not yet been established.  ITAQALLAH   14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but... I did a quick google and this person and his shrine are clearly notable. However, the article as written is mere  pseudohistory, Sunday-school pietism.  Is there some way to put an article on probation?  To say to the people who posted it:  You have X amount of time to make this objective and get some footnotes to reliable sources, or it will be deleted.  It is simply not right for sects to post their favorite saint stories on Wikipedia.Elan26 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * 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.