Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqeebia


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. There appears to be some kind of loose consensus in favor of both deletion and merge into an article that as best I can tell does not currently exist. I would encourage those who voted for this course or something similar to boldly create a new article and merge whatever they think useful and that is adequately referenced, being at all times mindful of WP:V. After which this article can either be turned into a redirect or renominated for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Naqeebia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue. Concern was: Essay or original research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) (Draftify even tho it is not very likely someone will work on it, as we have few editors in this area. But it might well be notable if properly soured.  DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: to discuss DGG's proposal
 * Delete, unsourced OR and POV advocacy essay. No opinion on potential notability, so no objection to a more competent recreation.  Sandstein   21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In light of Smmurphy's proposal....
 * Comment - I've found enough material to write an article about Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah, including RS(?) that he was the leader of a Naqeebi group of Sufis. This is enough, to me, to have Naqeebia/Naqeebi redirect to Muhammud Azmat Ullah Shah (until if/when rs on the whole order can be found). It isn't enough, to me, for this article to clearly satisfy WP:V. My recommendation is that this article be renamed Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah, the material on Naqeeb Ullah Shah and the Naqeebia order trimmed (and tagged cn where necessary) and used as context for the article on Amat Ullah Shah. Going this route (renaming) maintains the edit history and authorship. If this article is deleted, I'll likely try to write an article on Azmat Ullah Shah in any case. In the meantime, moving to draft space works for me. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since consensus seems to be in favor of creating a new article from parts of this article, should this article then redirect to the new article?
 * Comment - I've got a draft of a page on Azmat Ullah Shah as a section of this article, Naqeebia, which could be placed at Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah. Basically, everything I can find in reliable sources about the Naqeebi order is contained in that text, so I still don't see Naqeebia as meeting WP:V in a stand-alone article (if my Urdu were better, an external link is naqeeb.org). I do guess that Naqeeb Ullah and Naqeebia are notable, but with currently offline sources. If the result of this discussion is to delete, please feel free to move that section to that redlink or to my userspace so I can do so. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this article, but merge cited content to a future Muhammad Azmat Ullah Shah article per User:Smmurphy's reasoning above. There are reliable sources to be found on an individual who can possibly be described as notable in his own right, and that should be salvaged, but the order in and of itself doesn't seem to make the cut of WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and allow creation of a sourced article on Naqeebia. The rest is unsourced fancruft (?). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  19:15, 17 June 2017 (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.