Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus – Gurch 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dr Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi
Unverifiable. Not-notable. Probable copyright violation. Medtopic 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Hobbeslover talk/contribs 22:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What to do?. The man deserves a better article than this. He is definitely notable in sufism, and as the founder of IHRC India, where you can also find some of his writings.. It is more difficult to establish notability and verifiability than for a comparably notable American preacher and teacher (see WP:BIAS), and I like these names that run for almost a full line's length, but I don't immediately see how the article can be salvaged. --Lambiam Talk 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nacon kantari  00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. gidonb 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify. Definitely notable, as a founder of a major research center and one of the leading lights of a sect that contains over fifteen million people in India alone. Hornplease 20:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The arguments are persuasive.--Runcorn 20:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep See . I think the Professor test applies here, and he barely passes.  Perhaps his residence in India is the reason for the lack of Google hits. Adambiswanger1 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup. It should be possible to extract a good article of about two paragraphs from this mess; drop the rest but not the whole article. - Andre Engels 07:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a straight paste out of here. strong Delete only because this is obvious self-promotion by his organization - webpage was updated yesterday, probably to release the copyright... I don't vote Keep on promotional materials, even if the subject may be notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Crz is correct that in cases where an article is a cut-and-paste hagiography (or even simply a promotional vehicle), delete is likely as appropriate as keep and cleanup even if the subject is likely notable, inasmuch as most of the text likely can't be used in any event. In the case that there is salvagable text here (much of the detail of course, is unencyclopedic), and if we're generally in accord with the proposition that the subject is notable, perhaps stubifying the article (e.g., as Syed Mohammed Hameeduddin Sharafi is a scholar of Islamic history, author, and founder of the Islamic History and Research Council India.) and then allowing others to expand might be the best route to go.  Alternatively, if deletion is agreed upon, it's likely best that the subject be added to WP:RA, in order that a bio may be crafted in the future.  My thinking, I guess, parallels that of Lambiam, and, as he, I'm not certain what we ought to do...  Joe 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep.I dont know who created this page, i just wikified it a bit, after a search brought me to this page, as noted it is straight copy from the official website but it is not self-promotion as I partially help maintain that site and noone from our team created this page, it was me who added the non-copyright notice to avoid deletion. Dr Sharfi is one of the most respected and prominent scholars of Islam in Hyderabad and India and I think keeping this page will enable a better page over time.If Google search was possible in Urdu you will get hundreds of links about Dr.Sharfi. To satisfy those googlers

    


 * 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.