Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Faizullah


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  02:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad Faizullah

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was moved to draft space for further improvement but unfortunately it had been move warred. clearly a puff piece with various rubbish sources based on user generated content. Maliner (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Maliner (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. ─  The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have copyedited the article and seriously I don't think a PhD thesis written at the University of Dhaka about Muhammad Faizullah would be user-generated. The subject might not have received coverage in media due to WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS but that doesn't mean they aren't notable, and in this case, I do see some facts that ascertain subjective notability. Nonetheless, AfD is not cleanup, and the nominator needs to explain how resources used in the article are rubbish and user-generated. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  09:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is highly problematic and a thesis is not considered an RS. Even the 'Banglapedia' article does not stand up the assertion he wrote 100 books, for instance. A mess, really and fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Saying "a thesis is not considered an RS" oversimplifies the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section of WP:RS, which says Phd theses are RS, but notes some things to be cautious of. For the statement, "He was involved in the management of this madrasa until his death in 1976", it's almost certainly wrong to cite five pages of the candidate's conclusion, where they're summarizing their opinion. Surely such a simple fact must appear somewhere earlier in the thesis (and cite a source there). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: AfD is not cleanup and the nominator has not explained over the last week how the sources are rubbish. I've been writing about Islamic scholars since last three years and I seriously think that this person has been very much notable in his own field, Islamic jurisprudence, thus earning the title of "Grand Mufti". He was the Chief-Mufti at the oldest and largest Deobandi seminary in Bangladesh, thus, answering and approving religious edicts from the seminary, and they've have huge audience. Nonetheless, his being "subject" of a doctoral thesis at a public university affirms that he has been academically studied. Though this does not add up to WP:GNG but we all know GNG is not everything. This subject has subjective notability in my opinion, so I'm in favor of a keep. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Book shops are not better sources which are cited here. PhD thesis does not count for notability. Other sources are not reachable. Thank you. Jijisipu (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep National Encyclopedia and a PhD thesis are enough for notability.  –MinisterOfReligion  (Talk) 17:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * KeepHe is mentioned in numerous sources and encyclopedia (Banglapedia as well as the renowned Arabic encyclopedia al-Budur al-Madhiyyah which is a famous encyclopedia on the scholars of the Hanafi school). In addition to that there is of course the PhD thesis mentioned above. He was not any religious figure of Bangladesh, but the Grand Mufti - please do look into what that means before trying to get it deleted. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2022 (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.