Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Asedullah Quadri


 * 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.

Explanation for visitors to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has requirements that apply to every article. There must be good evidence that meets our notability guideline. (Even if someone is very loved or popular, the article will be deleted if this does not exist. That is a rule for all articles.) This discussion started because a user felt that good evidence did not exist. After a week the agreement of editors is that the kind of evidence we need still does not exist. I have read every comment on this page carefully. None of the comments on this page show the kind of evidence we need. So however popular he is, we cannot keep this article.

شرح للزوار :

ويكيبيديا والشروط التي تنطبق على كل مادة. يجب أن تكون هناك أدلة قوية على أن تجتمع لدينا "notability" التوجيهي. (حتى لو كنا نحب الشخص كثيرا والكتابة كثير من الناس، سيتم حذف هذه المادة إذا كانت الأدلة غير كاف ، وهذا هو حكم ذلك صحيحا بالنسبة لجميع المواد.)

حدث هذا النقاش لأن المستخدم يشعر أنه لا يوجد دليل جيد. بعد أسبوع المحررين نتفق على أن هذا النوع من الأدلة ما زلنا بحاجة لا وجود لها. لقد قرأت كل تعليق على هذه الصفحة بعناية. أيا من التعليقات على هذه الصفحة أظهر هذا النوع من الأدلة التي نحتاج إليها. ومع ذلك شعبية هو، لا يمكننا الحفاظ على هذه المادة.

FT2 (Talk 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mir Asedullah Quadri

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Simply put, there seem not be no reliable third party sources with which to construct an article - and so he may not meet notability threshholds for Wikipedia.

One editor has been trying hard and has offered 39 footnotes, but none appear to meet WP:RS. Most of the links are to Quadri's CIFA organisation (see talk). Unless suitable sources can be found, I suggest deletion. Scott Mac 15:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - reluctantly. There has clearly been a real problem communicating with the editor concerned regarding what is required for sourcing. While I find some of his claims regarding the notability of the subject a little implausible, I'm not entirely sure that Quadri is entirely non-notable either. Clearly as it stands the article doesn't meet the required standards, and therefore has to be deleted, but I think we should make it clear that should proper sources meeting the Wikipedia requirements be forthcoming, it may be possible to create an article at a future date - noting of course that nobody owns an article, and that others will of course also be able to edit it, provided that they too have proper sources. I'd suggest that anyone wishing to create a future article on Quadri seeks help from someone more familiar with how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertising and promotion, unless someone can rewrite the article in a neutral fashion with independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, several different editors have attempted to help the interested parties (Guide99 etc.) come up with proper sources establishing notability, without success. No prejudice against a normal article if such sources appear in the future, but for now deletion is the right outcome.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please dont delete the article. This would be very bad as there are a lot of followers of Shaikh on wikipedia. Instead, I suggest we can have the same article which we have now with just one line "Mir Asedullah Quadri (الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري) is a Shaikh of Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'a, Hanafi, known for his distinct explanations of Tawheed and Ilm-e-Sahih." and the books section till we get more independent sources. Mikebauer (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Mikebauer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We should STOP the deletion of this article immediately. We really love Shaikh Quadri and follow him on Wkiipedia.Please dont delete the article.I request Wikipedia owner...please dont delete the article Samueljaleel (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Samueljaleel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * DO NOT DELETE We are great followers of Shaikh and are joining the movement to ban Wikipedia from deleting Shaikh's Article. This is clear hatred to the person. I request the chief of the Wikipedia to look into this. We are coming forward as mark informed us about your discrimination. STOP this WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabeelzubair (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)  — Dabeelzubair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  DONT DELETE - You guys have any idea how popular this man is...I will *SUE WIKIPEDIA on behalf of our community if this happens.... Ronjetsky (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Ronjetsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See No legal threats. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * stop the deletion of the article. we have been informed by mikebauer that you all need some evidences....please dont delete the account...we all are coming forward because we all want to object your decision...we all have followed Shaikh on Wikipedia...now we are signing up and raising our voice on discrimination....DO NOT DELETE OUR SHIAKH's ARTICLE Chriszuby (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Chriszuby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Lobbying comments from newly created single purpose accounts are invariably ignored by the closing administrator and may only serve to give more weight to the deletion opinions here. If you are keen to keep the article, then please add some independent reliable sources rather than self-publications. I suggest calm discussion, the article can be re-created even after deletion if you can provide some sources to substantiate encyclopaedic notability as defined in WP:Notability (people). Thanks, Fæ (talk) 06:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Haven't seen any reliable third-party sourcing to verify the notability of this person. --DAJF (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment to newcomers: since we have some new arrivals to this debate, I'd strongly encourage you to read the prior discussion at Talk:Mir Asedullah Quadri. This will explain what the current concerns are about the article.  This deletion debate is not permanent, the article can be re-created if the basic standards are met at any point in the future.  Further, this is not a debate about Mir Asedullah himself.  This is not a debate about liking him, not liking him, or whether he's a good person.  This is exclusively a discussion of whether there is available documentation of the man and his activities by neutral, third-party sources (see WP:RS).  The article will not avoid deletion through voting or emotional arguments.  If sources meeting WP:RS can be presented, the article can stay, or be re-created if it has been deleted.  But until that point, for both the quality standards of Wikipedia, for liability reasons to avoid libel, and out of resepect for the reputation of Mir Asedullah himself as a person, it is unsafe for the article to remain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - and probably salting as well. This is a situation where nobody outside the subject's fanbase seems to have ever heard of him. This has nothing to do with religion per se; we have and welcome plenty of Muslim editors, as well as believers of all kinds. This has to do with verifiability, a core value here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete with salting, as per OrangeMike. I would be willing to reconsider with the production of reliable third-party sources, as have been requested before. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear lack of independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete - With all the support the editors who want the article kept seem to have, as they can't come up with better sources, and we aren't able to either, it should be deleted until and if some reliable sources can be found. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete regrettably. I've done my utmost to find independent verification of this gentleman's notability. I used the search tool Copernic which correlated the results from 733 search engines. I've tried searching on both Mir Asedullah Quadri and also الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري and cannot find anything that satisfies our criteria. I searched Google Books and Google Scholar. I've run out of resources to search. I believe that those who created and developed this article did so in good faith, and am surprised that so little has been written about him outside his own sphere. However, ultimately nobody has any right to place material on Wikipedia – it is simply a repository for information that is demonstrated to conform to a set of rules. Regards, Oguk (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I couldn't find anything either. The websites cited in the article confirm the English spelling of his name, although the arrangement and usage of the terms "Asedullah, Mir, Shaikh, Quadri" seems to vary might account for the lack of reliable sources if you search only for "Mir Asedullah Quadri". However, I searched only for "Asedullah" and found one NY Times article about an ethnic Hazara baker named Asedullah. A remaining explaination for lack of reliable source material is that all the material is in a foreign language and you would need to search "الشيخ مير اسد الله قادري". While such non-English sources are fine, they have not been presented in this AfD discussion or presented in the article. When you add in editors interested in the topic who do not seem to understand the Wiki way of reliable source material and no threats, the article should be deleted until such time as both (i) reliable source material is believed to be available and (ii) editors interested in the topic come to better understand the Wiki way. He is in Hyderabad, India and the reliable source material, if it exists, might be published there. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE I have gone ahead and removed all the stuff which we cannot prove by a thrid party reference for the Shaikh Aseduallah Quadri. Ahmad Deedat's letter to Shiakh is attached and if its too big for you all to see, I can re-scan and compress the file. The article is really very small now. I am hoping you all will allow atleast this version. Please do reconsider your decision. Mikebauer (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have struck out your second opinion here, as you already clearly expressed your preference for keeping the article earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Have you bothered to read WP:RS? None of the links you provide are from third-party sources.. Instead, you seem to be trying to link images that you have yourself scanned. I can't get them to load properly, but in any case, this isn't what we require, as has repeatedly been made clear. I had assumed that at least part of the difficulty with this article was due to misunderstandings, but frankly, I think we've been over-tolerant, and need to state unequivocally that unless you provide sources in the form we require, the article WILL be deleted. Letters from outsiders, regardless of their standing, are irrelevant. Either provide proper third-party sources, or accept that we cannot permit the article. You should realise that this may well be in the Shiakh's best interest: Wikipedia allows anyone who works within the rules to edit any article, and if we were to allow unsourced contributions to this article, there is no guarantee that they would all be favourable. Wikipedia works because we have standards, and they need to be adhered to, without exceptions, regardless of the reputation of an article subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0002.tif ^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0004.tif ^ http://www.cifiaonline.com/scan0005.tif If you put these urls in you browser, you will have an image file downloaded. Do you atleast know how to use a computer? How dare you accuse me of scanning irrelevant images? This is a proof of a letter that Shaikh received. If you are on a dial up connection (as I assume), please dont bother to download as its a big file. If you ahve broadband, go ahead and test it yourself.
 * Mind your tone here dude. This is a friendly discussion and not your blog to vent things out. I am trying to help. You dont have to yell at people just because you dont agree with someone. if you are a editor, then please go ahead and read policies on basic ettiquites on how to talk in public forums. you have been tolerant? you have been pissng me off since 3 weeks while I have been tolerant in editing my article. Make some logic when you speak or just shut up if you dont know how to talk.

Again, I have appreciated all the help all the time from everyone. Dont *ASSUME that you are doing a favor to me. You are doing your job and if you want to comment, make some sense.Dont make a fool of yourself (even if you are one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.63.33 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Mikebauer (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of scanned documents are not reliable sources don't you understand? We just aren't interested in these. what we require is evidence from sources not connected with the Sheikh that the statements you make about him in the article are true. We don't need to see letters he has received, we need evidence from newspapers etc that we can independently check, as you have been told many times. And making personal comments about people who have shown you more tolerance than could perhaps be reasonably be expected isn't doing your cause any good either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyone here is an editor. And as documents can be forged (and I am not saying yours are), your scans aren't sources we can use. Meanwhile please stop these personal attacks on other editors. AndyTheGrump has explained why your images are irrelevant and you attacked him for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  reference added Take it easy everyone. Lets not fight cheaply on this forum. Btw, I was just searching for some mispronouinced terms of Shiakh and I found a third party reference who has not taken the material from Wikipedia. http://www.ark-ebiz.com/worldnews.htm. I have added the reference to the page. try searching for Asadullah instead of Asedullah or so, and you will find some more sources...Dabeelzubair (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * reference removed The site said it is "TOP RATED ONLINE SHOPPING MALL" - clearly not a reliable source by our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 *  Reference looks good to me. Not sure what you are referring to, but this looks like a neat third party reference to me. Chriszuby (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly how does it look good to you? What kind of site to you think it is that makes it a 'neat third party reference'? Why is a page part of which is a direct copy of one of our articles (the bit on Zakir Naik) a third party reference? Who wrote this and why is that person an expert? Who checked to make sure the information was accurate? What's the editorial policy on the website? Have you read WP:RS which explains the sort of sources we need? Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (second opinion) http://www.ark-ebiz.com is completely unreliable. The website is mostly blank with fake sub-sections and appears recently created. Whois checks on the domain show that it has been registered anonymously (on 20 Sep 2010) and there is no confirming identity published on the webpages or embedded within the html code. There is no editorial policy or any other reason to believe that this site is not compromised and self-published around the "LATEST WORLD  ISLAMIC NEWS" section in order to provide a fake citation. Fæ (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Writing books is not necessarily notable. There are at the time of posting no references at all, except links to a non-independent website promoting the ideas of the subject. To those who claim to want to 'follow him on Wkiipedia' - sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Try AboutUs or LinkedIn for free hosting (well, they were free last time I looked...). As to 'hating' the subject, we've seen that argument here at AfD many times (and will probably see it again). Personally, I'd never heard of the subject before, know very little about him now, and won't worry if I never hear of him again. Equally, I won't worry if you come up with a load of reliable independent references that show that he is widely known, covered in reliable sources, adviser to national presidents and well suited to having an article here. I do change my !vote, and so will most regular editors, so long as the evidence is there. Please look at WP:RS (about reliable sources) and WP:BLP (about biographies of living people). Peridon (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, regrettably. I've put a lot of effort into communicating with the two main editors, giving detailed lists of why every single footnote offered has not met standards.  I've also run a variety of Google searches by all possible Latin-script spellings of his name and found nothing RS.  That said, I do not doubt that he is notable, with sources that simply aren't available online, but the body of editors who may likely have access to such material are simply not familiar with Wikipedia or (apparently) interested in learning to follow its standards and provide some verifiability. Lacking accessible sources, we end up with an extremely POV article that cannot be contradicted or supplemented.  In all seriousness, I would change my vote if someone would scan in a couple Hindi articles from the Hyderabad Times (or what-have-you) and/or some thesis by a CompRel professor in Delhi commenting on this gent's activities, but the people placed to acquire this info don't seem to fall into line with what is needed for RS. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The following accounts have been ✅ as the same person and have all been indefinitely blocked:



–MuZemike 01:53, 30 December 2010 (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.