Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shams-ul-haq Azeemabadi

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. - Bobet 09:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shams-ul-haq Azeemabadi

Nominated for deletion by AlasdairT with the edit summary nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Creating the subpage and listing it here as a good faith procedural action; no recommendation from me (yet?). --Kinu ^t/_c 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Can't even make what the article is about. --Ageo020 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - for the curious, the first several paragraphs explain that the man was a descendent of the Prophet, and the text after that seems to set him up as something of a hadith scholar, but I don't see any notability in being a Siddiq (there are millions worldwide) or a hadith scholar (there are more of these). BigHaz 05:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My above comments relate to a chaotic version of the article. This current version is better-written, but still I lean towards deletion. The gentleman in question may have been considered a leading religious authority, but the lack of sources saying as much is a concern. BigHaz 01:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and could the previous delete voters please have a look at the earlier versions of the article. I have reverted to one two revisions ago, only the very last one was so ridiculously chaotic. Article may still have a few issues about encyclopedic style and NPOV, but it's a legitimate article on a seemingly notable Indian Islamic scholar. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What sources lead you to believe that this is a legitimate article on a seemingly notable Indian Islamic scholar? --DrunkenSmurf 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The current version is coherent; judging from what I see the subject is worthy of having an article. However, some improvements may still need to be made to the article. -- tariqabjotu 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What do you see outside of the claims in this article that lead you to believe that the subject is worthy of having an article? --DrunkenSmurf 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There are ZERO reliable sources listed here for the subject so it fails WP:V straight away. --DrunkenSmurf 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Put up an {unsourced} tag. Simple lack of sources is not normally a reason for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have done that, thank you but I would refer you again to WP:V. In which it is clearly stated. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. and Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. This article as currently written fails that miserably. Without any sources it is simply original research which again does not belong on Wikipedia. If someone can provide some sources to back the claims made in the article I would be more than happy to review my position. --DrunkenSmurf 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment to my comment: Ok, Hope I am not coming off as being uncivil here... I just re-read all my comments on this page and as I was a little fired up about something non-related I may have come off as being a dick. Not my intention, appologize if I was biting. --DrunkenSmurf 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • An article is only unverifiable if it cites no sources and your best efforts to find some sources come up with nothing. An article is not unverifiable solely for having no citations. So: What efforts did you make to look for sources? Uncle G 19:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • If I could verify it I would have, as I mentioned above I found no sources by doing a google search for the subject's name except for Wiki mirrors. Again I would mention from WP:V Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic. And since I can find no sources, and since nobody has added any, this fails the most important principal of a Wikipedia article and therefore should be deleted. --DrunkenSmurf 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • "as I mentioned above" — You wrote no such thing above. (This is, indeed, the first occurrence of the word "search" in the whole discussion.) You gave no indication above that you had made any attempt at all to look for sources. Uncle G 11:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: "If I could verify it I would have". Sigh. Since DrunkenSmurf recognises that he's being a bit unpleasant, I will try not to knock him too hard for it. However, I do wish people in deletion debates would sometimes recognise that WP:BIAS exists.

          In particular, when an article states that person X is notable for having written book Y, the simple thing to do to establish WP:V is to check that Y exists and is notable. In this case, the [1] search for an idiosyncratic spelling of the second book mentioned in the article returns 475 English ghits. I would at least quadruple that, given that the rendition of Arabic into Latin characters is non-standard across the Middle East and South Asia. I further wonder how many ghits exist for this same book - one of three referenced in the article - in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and Hindi. Further, a cursory glance at some of the ghits would reveal to the uninformed, which DrunkenSmurf is in this case, that the article subjects' name can be spelled several different ways in English as well - "Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-'Adhim Abadi" for one among dozens of permutations.

          The moral? Its a good idea for everyone to recognise the limits of their specific knowledge and comparative ability to research certain subjects before thundering into deletion debates; would make the rest of us a lot happier. Hornplease 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

          • Thank you: Perhaps then you can add a couple references to the article and help make this a complete verified biography of the individual. The best outcome of an AfD is that a better article is created, sometimes that takes research from all types of editors not just those who are uniquely familiar with the subject. DrunkenSmurf 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an article lacking sources --shadow box 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes the articicle is unsourced. I do, however, believe that it's true. Who would make this stuff up? Therefore the only problem is finding the sources, which is doable. It says the guy wrote a 32-volume work. That's notable. I doubt it's just made up. Ditto if he was, as stated, an important figure in popularizing the Hadith and Wahhabism in the subcontinent. Herostratus 06:05, 2 September 2006 (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.