Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari


 * 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   no consensus. Sources have been provided at the end. Calling them non-independent appears to be stretching it a little. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable religious figure, article is mostly unsourced and a couple of searches do not produce a collection of reliable sources that could support the statements made or establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I listed a complaint at the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard about major POV issues on Kawthari's page, but I don't think the page should be removed altogether.  A Google search for "Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari" turns up 64,000+ hits, and as the Controversies section of the page reflects, his appearance at a major UK university was enough to elicit a public response from a member of parliament.  The page needs some serious work (and some trimming), done by someone who is NOT a member of an organization associated with Kawthari... but I am not convinced there are significant grounds for deletion. TremorMilo (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - IMO Google number results are valueless in assessing notability. apart from this single incident I can't see any independent reporting about him at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The only reliable substantial source is confined to a single event.  Most of the article lacks citations.  The links mostly seem to be sites that are connected to the subject, or are a non-media site critical of him.  Given the inherent contentious nature of this bio, we should demand multiple independent sources with substantial coverage about this person, and those be included in the article.  There seems to be no explicit claim of notability here (no major awards, best seller list, etc...).  So, the only way to argue for retention of this article, is to show quality coverage.   --Rob (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep With regards to the argument of notability, this man is notable in the fact that a brief google search of 'Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam' provides results linking him to talks given at various universities around the United Kingdom at various universities, mosques, and other venues such as Friend's House in Euston, London, UK. The results also show that he has also delivered talks in Canada and other countries worldwide.--Al-mahad al-turath (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * — Al-mahad al-turath (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom and Rob. More independent sources needed other than those around the controversy to denote a bio. Can't find any significant awards for his works as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This book about Muslims in Britain, published by the Cambridge University Press before any current controversy, devotes a couple of paragraphs to the subject and describes him as influential. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim that there are no sources independent of the subject or his publishers is not true. The claim that there is no citable content to show notability outside of a single event is not true. The article was written in 2009, and Phil Bridger's find was written in 2010, both before the controversy.
 * Most importantly, Muslims in Britain: An Introduction, page 88, Sophie Gilliat-Ray, Cambridge University Press is an impeccable source, not merely showing notability but explicitly noting influence.
 * Daru Liftaa
 * Seeker's Guidance (the photo on this page comes from the Commons version)
 * White Thread Press already in the article
 * Sunni Path Works from inside the article but not out. Weird.
 * Islamic Waves Mostly videos
 * Anarchangel (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the book in the preview but regarding all of the sources cited below that, I don't see how they are independent of the subject or topic being they are Islam or Muslim-related.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for showing the root of the 'independent' argument; I have grown accustomed to editors being unable or unwilling to identify or put forth their rationale. However, I must now show that its logic is flawed. The subject is Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari. They are not his websites. It is not logical, and therefore not part of WP rules, to assume that there is necessarily a conflict of interest between an institution an individual, who are assumed to share the same religion or are pertinent to that religion.
 * Anarchangel (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great point and I understand your argument along with ISs better now. It can be hard to tell whether a subject/topic is affiliated with the sources which makes news and other "neutral" sources better. How do you weigh his coverage in Islamic sources compared to secular sources? I think secular carry a heavier weight and add more to the nobility cause if he is recognized outside his field. In WP:GNG, "works produced by those affiliated with the subject" can be stretched. With that, I am still not all too convinced. --NortyNort (Holla) 01:24, 5 March 2011 (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.