Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri

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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri

Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Exactly three Google hits for the page title, all derived from the Wikipedia page, which is less than I would expect for a "great" saint. (May be due to variations in spelling.) Unsourced, and tone gives me the impression of being a hoax. (May simply be problem with writing style.) No improvements in four months since being tagged for notability concerns. I am unsure if the person was real or notable, so I am putting it up for discussion. Saligron 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Saligron 02:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete no reliable sources or proof of notability.--Sefringle 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can come along and back up the claims. --Selket ^Talk 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly non-notable and, given the lack of GHits, may be fictional. Incidentally, is it not true that The Prophet is never referred to, at least by a devout Muslim, by his bare name alone, but always with an honorific?--Anthony.bradbury 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced now of his reality; his notability I leave to the community.--Anthony.bradbury 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can fix the conflict with WP:A by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, sources denoting notability have been added in the last few days. It would be necessary to format and wikify the article and see if some problems with the cut and paste situation can be solved Alf^Photoman 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete No source, no web results, no editors have improved since a notability tag was placed 5 months ago. If the person is indeed notable, then a better article could be created in the future with sources. Nenyedi ^NenyediContribs_@ 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - completely unsourced, references are required, no reason for us to think this is notable or even exists until sources are provided. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, it is indeed a problem with spelling and denomination, as well as an author who was not fully Wikipedia educated. For a recent article on Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri, see "Badshah Quadri ‘urs’ to begin at Halkatta today" in the Deccan Herald of 13 Feb. 2006. There he is called Mohammed Badshah Quadri Chisty Yamani Quadeer. Another is at Patel, Aakar (11 June 2000)"Celebrating death and union in Wadi" Chowk.com, a reviewed South Asian forum reporting that 5000 people celebrated the 22nd anniversary of his death. See also: "Saint of the Day February 13 2005" Mary the Mother of Jesus.com Apparently the user who authored this piece, Shk feroz has not been on Wikipedia since Nov. 2006. I do not have a copy of either Haeri, Muneera (2000) The Chishtis: a living light Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0195793277, nor Ernst, Carl W. and Lawrence, Bruce B. (2002) Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond Palgrave Macmillan, New York, ISBN 1403960267 however it would be reasonable to check them before deleting this article. Is anybody near a large university library? --Bejnar 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep: per User:Bejnar still I think the article is likely a WP:COPYVIO. (→Netscott) 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Struck the weak and copyvio part of my view per the fact that the article has been heavily updated and improved. (→Netscott) 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete despite Bejnar, I think that it does not definitively refer to the same person as the links provided. And even so, unsourced and if Bejnar is right, it's the wrong article title. Bejnar, I live near Florida State University library, I'll try and get to doing a quick search by the end of this AFD (no guarantees though) has now been cleaned up, changing to KEEP⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to check the hard copy, unfortunately neither book is at FSU; in Florida copies are at UofF, UofCF, and UofWF even has one, see WordlCat. The problem with his name is that honorifics are stacked at the front, and descriptors are stacked behind. His base name is "Mohammed Badesha Qadri" or "Mohammad Badeshah Quadri" and varients inbetween. He is the same person, Sufi saint, born 1903, active in Karnataka state, Chisti order. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Seems notable, but the article is terrible. Needs POV and cleanup work. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete As above identification is at best questionable. Perhaps not unsalvageable, but has not been salvaged. Springnuts 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See above for ID info. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

After this AfD, I suggest renaming the article to Mohammad Badshah Qadri or something similar. --Bejnar 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have totally rewritten the article. When interlibrary loan provides additional data, I will update it. --Bejnar 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep rewritten article. Springnuts 00:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to Bejnar re: hard copy I checked through WebLUIS and the integrated State University Library System for Florida, and found nothing under Mohammed Badesha Qadri, Mohammad Badeshah Quadri, and every permutation of the two different spellings I could think of. I'm not saying it's not in there somewhere, but that tends to imply to me that it's not THAT important of a topic. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Clear Keep cleaned up version demonstrates notability and is policy compliant ((WP:ATT, WP:POV, etc). Eluchil404 01:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it now reads, i don;t think it would have been nom. DGG 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Clear keep per Eluchil404. But it still needs work. semper fictilis 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, article has improved since nominated for AfD and it stands to reason that problems with WP:A can be resolved Alf^Photoman 14:21, 21 March 2007 (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.