Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarwari Qadiri


 * 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 merge to Sultan Bahu. None of the "keep" !votes seems to be policy based. The meat/sockpuppeting does not help either. Randykitty (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarwari Qadiri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No RS supporting claim that this sect is as widespread as claimed. Many of the linked names in the claimed lineage go to generic "Muslim male given name" articles. Article written in a weasel-worded OR style (e.g., "The following people are said to continue...").  Pax 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep.Badly written and overly long, but this religious tradition exists nonetheless, with adherents in a number of countries outside Pakistan . However, the article should be copyedited and reduced to no more than two paragraphs.  kashmiri  TALK  10:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sultan Bahu - on second thought, this article is only relevant in the context of Sultan Bahu where a paragraph could be devoted to this tradition.  kashmiri TALK  12:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge Aside from one journal citation in the beginning, the other sources seem tied back to the whole Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. advertising fiasco here on the site. A single citation isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge it to Sultan Bahu, not much because of the content but because of its little relevance. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

- Given first 8 references have nothing to do with deletion labels - As per policy, Online and Published materials are also sufficiently available to justify the existence of this article - The article is very much verifiable from ground realities and facts 110.93.205.162 (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "No need to delete" because the objection itself is not true and fair

INVALID REASON TO MERGE

This article should not be merged with Sultan Bahu:
 * Both articles are on DISCRETE subjects:Sarwari Qadiri about a Sufi Order and Sultan Bahu is a biography.
 * The reason of merging is itself IRRELEVANT AND ILLOGICAL.There is no significant overlap of topic i,e. between Sarwari Qadiri and Sultan Bahu. In Islamic Sufism, the Sufi Order and Biography are two separate categories. While the Sufi Order contains the origin, history, progress, saints of the order, etc., biographies of saints exist in large number each limited to one particular saint's life. Even if a saint is the founder of a specific Sufi Order, that still does not qualify for a merge. For example, Qadiriyya is one article totally separate from Abdul-Qadir Gilani although this saint was the founder of this Order. So the reason to merge is totally INVALID.
 * Also no duplication of content.
 * The article has significant references and reliable sources attached (Google search is available for keen investigations).

Iilluminate (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep and Speedy Close: Notable Spiritual Order like Qadiriyya, Chishti Order and Naqshbandi and foundation of this Spiritual Order Was set by famous sufi Saint and sufi Poet Hazrat Sultan Bahu about 340 years ago 182.185.229.16 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ask Close Admin
7 Days have passed after the AfD and the article has now been added to Old Discussion.

This is what the article says: "For administrator use only: "

I now ask admin to close the discussion as this tag is already present on the article edit section.

Iilluminate (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2015 (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.