Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sufyan Qasmi


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Sufyan Qasmi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable scholar, no independent reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG Numan765 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: the nominator has been blocked as a sock. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikibaji/Archive -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Holding main position in Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband, one of the important seminaries in India. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable person at a large Indian religious institution with plenty of reliable references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate that there are "plenty of reliable references" with a list of 8 examples not used in the article. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Improved the article with more reliable references. There are more, because the seminary he is rector/Vice chancellor of, is one of the top seminaries of Deobandis in India after Darul Uloom Deoband. The article at Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband also needs cleanup, expansion and I'm hoping to do that soon. I don't know where to fit this top administrative post. WP:NACADEMIC says The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. The subject holds a major post. - Best- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it helps a lot that you have put in citations to newspapers using either the cite news or cite format, with wikilinks to the newspapers so that other Wikipedia users can see that they are proper newspapers. It is unfortunate that Google is Anglo-American centred and does not include Indian newspapers in  Google News. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Norm. KST981 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable as per WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * delete notability is not inherited. Whatever sources I could find, are about darul uloom. Subject doesnt have significant coverage in reliable sources. That can be observed even in the sources provided in the article (as mentioned above in the discussion) by user AaqibAnjum. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that notability isn't inherited. But, three sources in the article at least, like one from The Siasat Daily The Milli Gazette, a book of Noor Alam Khalil Amini, a reliable Islamic journal published from New Delhi are reliable and almost let the article pass WP:SIGCOV. There's a problem normally, we don't find online coverage for such subjects, but there's definitely offline coverage in books/journals. Let me find more. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the decision is to delete, it would be a good idea to merge at least some of the contents into the article on Darul Uloom Deoband Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband.  There would probably be a benefit in creating a redirect to that page. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , subject is not related to Darul Uloom Deoband. So merging there is not right. However, related to Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband where I don't think its better to merge. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. He satisfies Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * would someone please provide the sources instead of just saying "subject passes GNG"? It's exactly like saying " big orange bully is smarter and more intelligent than Anthony", and not providing any source. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Offline sources including the journal I sourced some claims from, and the book of Noor Alam Khalil Amini are significant, supported with the online sources of The Milli Gazette, The Siasat Daily, Daily Jang - does every source need to be online available on Google to let a article meet GNG? The subject is Vice-chancellor of one of the top religious seminaries Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband in India as well. As I said, if time permits, I'll expand the article related to Darul Uloom Waqf, Deoband. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2020 (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.