Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Mohi-ud-Din Qadri


 * 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. I am not convinced by any argument below that the page should be moved to draft space. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hassan Mohi-ud-Din Qadri
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is a notable scholar of Islam, but the fact that he has named his son as his successor within MQI does not YET mean that the son is notable at all. Before I removed all the non-neutral sources and peacocking and puffery, the current article was a frivolous piece of fan-club-style nonsense about him being great, a famous humanitarian, terrific scholar etc. A Google search simply does not show this. Sorry Minhaj-ul-Quran members and fans, but he is simply not yet notable. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability not yet there. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as there's nothing minimally convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Has not actually achieved anything of note according even according to sources. Indeed LinkedIn, blogs, and Twatter seem to be the only mentions he gets. Muffled Pocketed  15:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The scholar is notable. Visit all the associated websites and find results on Google or Bing as well. Find him here on Google search User:Mohd Sarim AshrafiMohd Sarim Ashrafi (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my point. Muffled Pocketed  16:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as he meets neither the general notability guideline nor the notability guideline for academics. The article was recently reverted to the old promotional version, but that has been rectified. --bonadea contributions talk 16:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am expanding this with independent sources. --Fadesga (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated, could the article be moved to draft space or a user sandbox so interested editors can keep working on it? GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to draft space . Does the article, in its current condition, justify staying in mainspace? No. Is there potential that the article might meet GNG or other notability guidelines? Yes. As a result, the best outcome is to incubate the article in draft space and give more time for sources to be found and a neutral article to be written. If it stagnates there, then it can be cleaned out later with G13. —C.Fred (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the nominator now feels the article is sufficiently sourced. I now feel the article should be retained—ideally in the main space, but if necessary, moved to Draft. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: I still think the subject is not notable. The article makes two claims, each of which is referenced with a third-party source, hence I removed the template about inline citations. Yet the two assertions do NOT establish notability. One merely establishes that the subject gained his PhD. So what? The other merely shows that he published one book chapter. This certainly has not made him a prolific or influential scholar. So my view remains unchanged. Qadri is not notable. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - He really does not have any sources that show why he is currently notable, just ones that prove he did things like get his PhD or spoke once to the House of Commons, neither of which demonstrate any lasting notability. No prejudice to recreate once the subject becomes sufficiently notable and has proper sources to show this, but its WP:Too Soon.64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2016 (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.