Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hanif Khan


 * 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. The arguments for keeping aren ot supported by policy: notability is claimed on the basis of his spiritual importance, though there is no way to document that. We cannot make an 1encyclopedia on such a principle.  DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Hanif Khan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another article from the promotional stable of User:Rahmatgee, next to Tauheediyah, Abdul Hakim Ansari and Muhammad Siddique Dar. Like the other three, this one also promotes a persona in a little-known religious group in Punjab, Pakistan. So little known that the person cannot be found on the English internet, and the article is entirely self-sourced (i.e., sourced to a publication by the said group). Article entirely fails WP:NBIO and should be deleted from English Wikipedia in my view, per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. — kashmiri  TALK  20:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems to be, yet again, another case of little known South Asian religious figures receiving articles by dedicated local followers. This happens with an extremely high frequency and is almost always in good faith, but usually accompanied with attempts to continuously re-cite the same sources to inflate the reference section, poorly written prose and often very little claims of nobility aside from piety and faith. The most recent examples would be Articles for deletion/Abdul Hakim Ansari and Articles for deletion/Tauheediyah. Like those, the article on Muhammad Hanif Khan fails the WP:GNG and also falls into advertisement issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic as satisfying WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:SELFPROMOTE. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being a saint. Authors refer him as the major source of innovating thought of Vision of absolute self of God. Spiritual chain such Tauheediyah is following his ideology and has its followers around the globe.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There are only two sources cited here, both of which are associated with the now deleted Tauheediyah group (whose article you created and which failed all of the above mentioned guidelines and policies, like this article). How does an article with only two citations satisfy WP:GNG? And why did you just copy almost all of your comment here from Articles for deletion/Muhammad Siddique Dar, which is the same thing you did on the last two related articles that were deleted? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes two sources were cited and other were given for further readings. I think it is good not to add many references within the text. Should these be added? Further readings have independent sources as well. Some books cite Muhammad Hanif Khan as the originator of Vision of the absolute self of Muslims God; Allah. His personality has been discussed by some other scholars in connection to Abdul Hakim Ansari. Abdurrehman Killani also discussed his personality in detail in his comprehensive book 'Shariato tareeqat'. These are good evidence of notability and according to WP:GNG. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing wrong regarding policies and cite sources that have published and circulated. Person is famous saint. I read about him in any book that was not cited there. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Same IP only posting on AfDs and DRVs of articles created by this person? Yeah no, the DUCK is strong with this one. --Majora (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and write again. He is saint. His spiritual thinking, ideas, and sufism material is missing that are his real work on new theories and concepts not known before him. Consider notable. (WP:AUTHOR - 2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique). 39.35.248.250 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — 39.35.248.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete and then Draft for any necessary improvements because, although there may be sources, there are still noticeable questionable parts, and for this, it's best put aside to make any necessary substance and notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  23:06, 12 July 2016 (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.