Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minhaj al-karamah


 * 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. after further work, it's clearly a keep.  DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Minhaj al-karamah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No copy Lfstevens (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "No copy"? In any case, I restored the article's text. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe the user was expressing a concern that the article contains a copyright violation, and blanked the content for that reason. Not at all the proper procedure, but that would be my guess. At any length, the picture used in the article is obviously not the author's work, despite the permissions tag, and has been tagged as a copyright violation on Commons. It would be worth looking at this with the CopyVio Detector tool, but I don't have the tool bookmarked on this computer. If no one is able and/or takes the liberty for a while in the course of the AfD discussion, I'll ask Earwig for the link. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The version I read had had its copy deleted. That's the only reason I proposed it for del. I'll examine what's there now, but don't expect to support deletion at this point. Lfstevens (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: would nom give a policy-based deletion rationale, please? Sam Sailor Talk! 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 01:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete unless better coverage can be found as there's nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  08:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a policy-based argument hidden somewhere in that delete vote? I do say vote because if you had at all read the article or looked for sources, you would have come to another conclusion. Drive-by voting is not beneficial. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I would almost say solid independent notability WP:GNG for one example as although there are some sources and conceivably more Arabic, I'm not entirely convinced this is keepable (but I am willing to change if more sources are uncovered). To be honest, this is not my familiar field but may have some familiar insight. Cheers,  SwisterTwister   talk  07:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Please check google book to find how many scholarly works refer to this work! (-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep . I have added a couple of cite books, there are hundreds in English and G*d knows how many in Arabic. WP:BEFORE is mandatory, nominating an article on a ~700 year-old manuscript without looking at the article history or doing a book search is a waste of time. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:21, 20 November 2015 (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.