Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari


 * 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. Non-admin closure.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Only provides one source in the last two years and does not prove notability to meet wiki standards Zionlove2 (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as only one reference has been provided in over 2 years which does not prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010 — Zionlove2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: "was an eminent Sheykh (Spiritual Master) of tariqa Chistiyya and an Islamic scholar from Pakistan who served as a Judge at the Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan and Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan." sounds notable enough to me. It needs additional sources and some of it needs rework, but an article needs to be unsupportable rather than just unsupported in order to to justify deletion. The nominator doesn't seem to have done WP:BEFORE before the AfD, as there are plenty of Google hits (I haven't checked them, but some look notable), and presumably more in Pakistani sources that might not be readily available online. --  Boing!   said Zebedee  00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep apparently not a good faitgh request for deletion.    DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you can contribute to improving the article then do so.Otherwise it is quite obvious from the lack of sources that this article does not meet notability requirements of wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for other editors to improve an article themselves in order to be allowed to voice their opinions on whether it should be deleted. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being a supreme court justice meets WP:POLITICIAN and I consider the Pakistan Postal Service page I added a reliable source in this respect (possibly not strictly independent but here we're just establishing he held a position so it doesn't need to be). Verging on a speedy keep as a possible bad faith nomination - the nominator has nominated several articles for deletion (by all three deletion methods) all of which relate to Islamic scholars.  Giving the user name of the nominator I strongly suspect a conflict of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per DGG and Dpmuk. Peridon (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Looking at the nominator's contributions, I agree this is a bad faith nom per DGG. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Irrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources.Zionlove2 (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep meets wikipedia guidelines for notability Alio The Fool 18:55, 21 March 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.