Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi


 * 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 keep.  JGHowes   talk  22:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Currently only a single primary source. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Jamiatur Rasheed is among the major Deobandi "higher religious education" seminaries in Pakistan. There is plethora of coverage offline (in Urdu) about it. This is my major field of work, and I admit this seminary is a notable one. I'd be working on updating the article soon. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi is a major university established in 1977 for higher religious education. Added 2 new references to the article including a newspaper and a Government of Sindh website. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aafi & Ngrewal1. - Owais Talk 09:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment none of the additional sources are in-depth. The government source is a simple mention, the news article is not about the institute, but about a meeting which occurred there, and the third source is primary.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This above article right now is barely a total of line and a half. Thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles are accepted and exist in that condition, where the editors are given opportunities to expand and improve them. That's no basis for asking for outright AfD deletion? Give people a chance to improve it since it's a major university in Karachi. I am sure the expanded article can look a lot better with more in-depth content and references. Added the category 'Pakistan-university-stub' today.Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep No indication whether any searching in Urdu was undertaken as part of a BEFORE process. Notable university/madrassa, frequent mentions in English language press, in-depth discussion in Urdu. "Some notable madrasas, including Jamia Tur Rasheed Karachi"


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - and not a single one of the above refs goes in-depth about the institute, just simple mentions.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment As my !vote indicated: frequent *mentions* in English language press, in depth discussion in Urdu. I'm not sure how the articles discussing the visit of Pakistan Army Major General Asif Ghafoor to the university or the visit of 100 students to the Sindh Rangers can be characterised as "simple mentions", there's in depth discussion of the madrassa as one of the important locations of early support for the Taliban and the university leadership's more recent attempts to moderate its image via invitations of prominent Pakistani liberals, such as Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, or visible interactions with the military. An Urdu-language BEFORE would have avoided this. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a run of the mill seminary, one of hundreds in this large Muslim country of 212 million people. For anyone arguing with me on my knowledge, I saved Nursing in Pakistan. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Army Generals and Chief Justices are not speaking at every madrassa in Pakistan. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 14:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Jamia Tur Rasheed is one of the Illustrious seminary in Pakistan. 02:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Ainty Painty (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete "one of the illustrious seminary in Pakistan" it may be, but it's not notable as per WP:NSCHOOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment delete comments here seem to not understand the nature of this institution, this is a madrassa for university graduates, NB WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2 ... it is not a "school" (in the the British English sense). Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , True. As I've stated in a number of AfDs including this concerning madrasas that we must not confuse between the two. Madrasas have a different system but sadly we don't have any guideline for them like we have for schools. Jamiatur Rasheed Karachi is a degree awarding religious institute and its degree is equivalent to a double MA. (see this). Random madrasas aren't even equivalent to matriculation. Despite this, JTR has made a good news.─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources all seem to trivial and otherwise extremely run of the mill. They have to address the subject of the article directly and in-depth. Things like research papers on rates of depression in people who attend the place just don't satisfy that standard and I'm not seeing anything else that does. If someone can provide three independent in-depth sources that address the place directly I'll be happy to change my vote to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This repeats the claims made above, without addressing the *Urdu* language sources already discussed and continues to misconstrue the nature of this institution, ie it is a degree awarding higher education body. Again, I reiterate, run of the mill "schools" are not visited by Army Generals, Chief Justices or have delegations received by the Governor of Sindh. Seems necessary to spell this out... WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES c2: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online..


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should not be used in AfD discussions as per a February 2017 RfC.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTCOMESBASED: Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTCOMESBASED is an essay. Not a policy. Whereas, the conclusion of the RFC (which revolved around changing the wording in an actual policy) was clear that "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Um... Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is ... an ... um .. essay.  There is no policy which indicates reference to SCHOOLOUTCOMES cannot form *part of* discussions at AfD... the point is that it should not be used *solely* as justification, which nowhere in this AfD has that been the case. Having already provided RSs on this madrassa and elaborated on the contents of those sources, I've simply highlighted point 2 of the conclusions that notes that tertiary institutions can generally be assumed to be notable even where online sourcing is nto readily available.  If no one had presented any sourcing here, I could understand an editor asserting that point, but that is not the case here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , uhm, RfC's are consensus.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC is not consensus, it is simply a *process* that may or (more generally) may not produce a consensus on a particular issue. The RfC that produced SCHOOLCOMES was about *secondary* education, it produced conclusions that included commentary on post-secondary institutions in order to differentiate the discussion around presumed notability for secondary from tertiary institutions ... and since the discussion now turns to consensus, consensus at AfD is that tertiary educational institutions are generally considered to be notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the consesus at AfD. Articles about tertiary eductional institions get deleted all the time. Also, What makes the RfC that resulted in SCHOOLOUTCOMES more of a consesus that should be listened to then the one later that decided it should not be used in AfD discussions anymore? Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus that degree-awarding, independent not-for-profit (private and public) tertiary educational institutions are presumed notable. What gets deleted "all the time" are for-profit, commercial businesses providing post-secondary educational services. There's a substantial difference. The full text of WP:UNIN is worth (re)reading (yes, well aware it is part of an essay). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Acredited or not, its an Islamic seminary/madrasas. In no way they the same as a university. Which is what the guideline is talking about. Also, if its public or private makes a huge difference to notability. Private univerities (which this isn't anyway) are not treated the same at AfD or anywhere else as public ones. Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Today, there's nothing absolutely mutually exclusive between a seminary and a university (eg universities containing schools of religious ordination or schools of religious ordination having evolved into degree awarding institutions, ie universities). There's no reason a seminary cannot be a university, let alone considering the exact historic origins of universities. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's not what I said. Also, it would be ridiculous to treat some random private Cathlic seminary the exact same as the Stanford's or Harvard's of the world. No one here does. Let alone do the guidelines. You should read up on what a Madrasa is to, because they can be "any type of educational institution." Which is what my point was. Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the notability of a specific religious degree-awarding tertiary educational institution, not madrassas in general. Despite repeated assertions of run-of-the-mill, not a single editor supporting delete has addressed the evidence provided that this institution holds a status that is not akin to "some random private Cath[o]lic seminary". Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a madrassa. So we can't talk about the notability of madrassas in an AfD about a madrassa? Right....It seems like your really picking and choosing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

But not a madrasa that teaches upto Class 8 or 10? It is equal to that of a university in our Western Educational system, i.e. degree awarding institute as the sources say, not definitely "run-of-the-mill". We've a local Madrasa here that teaches upto Persian class. That's definitely run-of-the-mill but a degree awarding madrasa isn't less than in equivalence to Darul Uloom Deoband or any other such institution. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Run off the mill is in relation to the state of the sourcing. Which is the only that matters in AfDs. Not what the place is. Not that "other stuff exists" is ever a valid AfD arguement, but how many in-depth, non-trivial (or non-run of the mill) references are in the article for Darul Uloom Deoband compared to what is avalible for this one? Adamant1 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Compared to DUD, the institution "is not where the Deobandi movement began or which produced numerous Indian freedom struggle activists, or the founders of Jamia Millia Islamia and Pakistan, and it definitely isn't "155 years old", but established some 44 years ago. That said, the coverage that these type of seminaries usually get, is already what has pointed out above, and majorly in Urdu language. I must bring the fact that the major hub of Deobandis in Pakistan, the Darul Uloom Karachi, where Muhammad Taqi Usmani (internationally considered an authority in Islamic finance) teaches, and Muhammad Rafi Usmani is the president "fails in what you call significant coverage" ; and that type of coverage doesn't really matter everywhere and this is why there exist subjective guidelines. Nonetheless, I was able to locate this book, The services of Islamic seminaries, by Muḥammad Anvar bin Ak̲h̲tar, where they discuss Jamiatur Rasheed as a major Deobandi institution, and also discuss their program of "Kulyatush-Sharia". I've expanded the article from a reliable journal published by the University of Karachi that discusses the seminary alone in 5 pages. And honestly, more such sources exist offline. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not really concerned with what type of coverage these usually get, I'm concerned with what type of coverage this particular one does or doesn't have. Otherwise, there would be zero point in doing AfDs on any subject out there, because most subjects in general have "coverage." This isn't and AfD about the notability of seminaries (or whatever) in general though. Also, if most of the resources are majorly in the Urdu language, cool. That doesn't stop anyone from finding or providing them though, and that's all I'm asking for. Is for people who say sources exist to provide them. It could even be names of the articles, I don't really care, but it has to be more then handwaving about how "seminaries are notable in general. So whatever." Finally, it doesn't matter if notable people work there. Notability isn't inherited. Nor is it based on who works for a place. Feel free to create an article about any of those people if you think they are notable enough to warrant one though. Again, I don't really care. Which subjective guidelines cover the notability of seminaries, madrassa, or says there doesn't need to be sources for them to be notable? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are at least five Urdu sources that have been cited and linked here (or added to the article) since this AfD began; not one editor has claimed that "sources must be out there", we've added them. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment BTW, I find it rather uncouth that TheAafi edited the term madrassa out of the article. It seems a lot like whitewashing in order to side step the discussion about if they are inherently notable or not. I doubt they would be resorting to such tactics if this was an inherently notable topic like they say it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage you to assume good faith (as has everyone else with your contributions); per WP:HEY, there's no reason discussion at AfD cannot inform changes to an article. If you have an issue with changes to the content, the article's talk page is a far more appropriate place to take it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What edits to the article have I made during this AfD that people are assuming good faith about? Because last I checked I haven't made any. The existence of WP:HEY doesn't mean it is OK to selectively edit words out of articles that don't help your AfD arguments. Which is what TheAafi did. Not make edits that simply "changed content" in the article. More so because there was no discussion on the talk page or here about it and the word that was deleted fundamentally changes what the article is about. Also, it was  removed during an active AfD discussion about the word. There's zero about that is good faithed, appropriate, or just making "changes to the content" of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point out one place where I changed the word madrasa to seminary? The first sentence of the article ever since the article creation says "Islamic seminary" – now this doesn't help if I make changes to make the lede consistent with the article. FYI, the sentence was that Mufti Ludhynwi brought this madrasa to peak – and I really don't care about it because the introductory sentence says & said, it is a seminary. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  08:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, Madrasa is a Urdu heavily used in Urdu and we need to know where it means what. If some new editor mixes things like the article creator did – we shouldn't definitely bite those who improve such articles. That said, I added content below the lede, and updated the lede with consistency based on its introductory sentence and the rest of information. I didn't changed madrasa to seminary. Thanks. I also fail to understand why are you accusing me, without providing any proofs.─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you changed the word madrasa to seminary. I said you deleted it, like six times. Goldsztajn was the one that said you were just "changing content." Nice straw man though. People can easily see the proof that you deleted the word by looking at yours edits to the article. I don't feel the need to link to them. Also, it doesn't matter if the person who created the article was a new editor at the time. That doesn't mean they didn't know the meaning of the word madrasa at the time or that you shouldn't have discussed removing it on the talk page before doing so.


 * Especially since it was being discussed here when you deleted it. I'm hard pressed to come up with a valid reason for you deleting the word considering the context that you deleted it under, and all you've done is strawman me and make excuses about it. So, I'm sticking by the fact that it was bad faithed on your part and completely inappropriate. Both of you seem to be deflecting a lot and making up a bunch of excuses for why the article should not be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also amazed to know that I've been seen, saying, seminaries are notable by default, woah, where did I say it. I've pointed out the "type of coverage that covers the seminary that Goldsztajn has already referred to above. Doesn't make sense to misinterpret my words. "Provided the type of coverage that Goldstajn refered above; and if notable people work there" is never equal to saying "inherently notable". Nonetheless, I was trying to explain what sort of coverage these seminaries usually get, provided that it should be clear that Jamia Tur Rasheed is pretty notable even if the article creator makes inconsistency in the article content saying seminary in introductory sentence & then saying Mufti Ludhyanwi brought the madrasa to peak – this sentence doesn't serve purpose to prove that this is a little madrasa or that it isn't notable. Please, AfD is not cleanup. The source I've added is significant (5 pages), another one is also significant. Few others pointed in the AfD. What else? Saying someone brought the madrasa to peak doesn't serve any purpose & AfD isn't cleanup. It doesn't really make sense. I know the article creator for his inconsistencies and have patrolled a number of their articles. Since AfD is not cleanup, I'm not bind to "ask at AfD should I change this or not, and since it is inconsistent with the sources/reality it doesn't require a discussion either, imo. We call such institutions as "madaaris" in Urdu, be those little ones or the higher ones. Darul Uloom Deoband is referred as the "Deoband madrasa" in numerous works, should we just delete the terms and call them with Urdu terms? It is a total mess when someone puts up his opinion on you. The cleanup wasn't affected by this AfD or towards saving the article. Assume good faith, my friend. If you find the cleanup as wrong, raise the issue on talk page – and if you aren't fine with the sources that I added, just say it. Why to cherry pick and accuse of being in bad faith? ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  09:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your whole thing about how I said you claimed seminaries are inherently notable it's not something I said. Except to say, that putting things in quotes that the person your talking to didn't say is an extremely mediocre way to have a discussion. Outside of that, the sentence your quoting wasn't the only time the word madrasa was mentioned in the article and you them removing because it was badly worded completely ignores the context of the AfD discussion that was going on when you removed it. Which is what matters here. I would care less about the edit if it was done randomly when there was no AfD discussion going on about the word.


 * There's zero reason you couldn't have just rephrased it to sound better or not touch it in the first place until me and Goldsztajn were done discussing it. Look at it this way, would it be cool if there was an AfD about an athlete or actor that had an active conversation about what notability guidelines were relevant to them and someone deleted all references to the words "athlete" or "actor" from the articles, because "hey man, AfDs aren't cleanup, I'm just changing things in the article..The sentences were phrased badly anyway.." or due to some similar reason? I wouldn't think so. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh no! Man. The two references exist there. I'm not able to access the government-website because I live in India, and the other source just says, "Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi’s Mufti Taqi Usmani, Darul Uloom Haqqani Nowshera’s Maulana Anwar ul Haq, Jamia tur Rasheed Karachi’s Mufti Abdul Rahim, Jamia Farooqi Karachi’s Maulana Dr Muhammad Adil, Jamai Binori Town’s Maulana Imadadullha, Jamia Binoria Karachi’s Maulana Noman Naeem and Darul Uloom Farooqia’s Maulana Qazi Abdul Rasheed were prominent among the clerics who attended the meeting." Updating the article to what the sources support shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't mention Mufti Rashid's role. FYI, the government source also titles, Delegation Of Jamia Tur Rasheed Led By Mufti Abdul Raheem Called On Governor Sindh Imran Ismail". ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and I did re-phrase it as, Mufti Abdul Rahim is the current head of the seminary. How do we rephrase something that sources don't support? like Mufti Rashid did so and so (imo, this belongs to his biographical article). I mean, how does it help the AfD. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool what does the person your talking about have to do with if the place is a Madrasa or if you removing the term from the article was OK or not? At this point your just talking in circles about nonsense to avoid the problem or answering my question. Adamant1 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any merit in your questioning. Mufti Rasheed Ahmad Ludhianvi brought this madrassa to its peak and at the time of his death made Mufti Abdul Rahim the superintendent of the madrassa. - the two cited sources don't help this, rather say, Mufti Abdur Rahim is current head of Jamia Tur Rasheed (and it exists there, though rephrased). The sources say "Jamia Tur Rasheed" and don't focus on "madrassa". Please reread my comments, sources, and earlier and new version of the lede. I'm done in updating the article as much as I could, and I leave it here. I have clarified each of your "curiosity" so far. Thanks.─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  11:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you wouldn't. And no, you haven't clarified anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: The News International states that the seminary is among the "notable madrasas" of Pakistan. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's a textbook 'passing mention' right there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a passing mention but "5-pages coverage" in a reliable journal Usooluddin published by University of Karachi is definitely not. Other sources have also been indicated above and in the article as well. Also, this book has discussed the Jamia Tur Rasheed as a major Deobandi seminary while discussing their "Kulyatush-Sharia" program. Enough coverage has already been demonstrated. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  14:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Participants in this discussion are reminded that brief, cogent arguments are more effective than large walls of text.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Jamia Tur Rasheed and Jamia Binoria both disaffiliate from the Wifaq ul Madaris Al-Arabia, Pakistan, and interestingly the Government of Pakistan approves a "new board" for just this. The board is formed because of the JTR influences. See nawaiwaqt report] (JTR rector appointed as the president). See also, this and this. Thanks. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.