Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Shahidullah Faridi

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, see also WP:PROF. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shah Shahidullah Faridi

Shah Shahidullah Faridi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary reliable sources to verify that this person is notable Sefringle 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
*Comment- "Died in relative obscurity." So, basically, to sum it up, he was unknown and unimportant? - (Ninsaneja 00:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Do you see any secondary sources confirming notability? I don't see any sources, let alone reliable sources that prove notability.--Sefringle 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:WEB.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.83.254 (talk • contribs).

• First of all, this is not web content, so WP:WEB is inapplicable. The appropriate guideline is WP:BIO. A search on "shahidullah faridi' turns up a handful of scholarly references and a larger handful of non-scholarly onessuch as. He seems to have some notoriety as a European convert to Islam before that was common. It's borderline, but it does look like there are sources for WP:V. Weak keep. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I meant WP:BIO. But with those links, it still fails WP:BIO guidelines, as geocities is not proof of notability.--Sefringle 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, but it does indicate that he has some importance, which would stop me from nominating an article like this in the first place and instead look for sources. This scholarly article says:

In contemporary Pakistan, the leaders of the Chishti-Sabiri sub-branch continue to guide their followers along the arduous Sufi path (tariqa), armed with a spiritual genealogy that links them directly to the authority of the Prophet Muhammad. My work focuses in particular on the legacy of three important Chishti-Sabiri spiritual masters (shaykhs) whose lives paralleled the birth and development of Pakistan itself: Muhammad Dhawqi Shah (d. 1951), and his two principal successors, Shahidullah Faridi (d. 1978) and Wahid Bakhsh Rabbani (d. 1995).

Based on that alone, I think this is a significant figure. The lack of English language sources hampers us but does not affect notability. Though we are limited to a stub, it is likely that this could be expanded by someone with access to sources in Urdu or whatnot. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like a number of published works, well over 1,000 GHits under his various names (Shah/Shaikh/Hazrat Shahidullah Faridi), e.g. following were in first 20 GHits Muslimedia College Reading List etc. Nom appears to regularly AfD Muslim subjects, but this one looks notable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Those sites do not prove notability, and google hits does not prove notability. Muslimedia isn't even a reliable source. As for the other source, it is only a syllibus, and it doesn't even mention Shah Shahidullah Faridi's name.--Sefringle 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Apart from the bit that says articles by Shahidullah Faridi, "Baiat" and "The Spiritual Psychology of Islam"? Here's another from Ohio State University and another one from UNC. Seems to be a lot of scholarly references. Incidentally, why is a book review in Muslimedia not reliable? EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per EliminatorJR's comments. Besides, if Google hits don't prove notability, why did nom use them as an arguement for why the article should be deleted? Curtmack of the Asylum 01:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Dhartung. And if I am permitted to comment: If there are other sources besides the weak ones in the article why are they referenced in the AfD and not there ? Alf^Photoman 17:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. He's got eight credits at Amazon.com as well. [1] RGTraynor 18:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - as to "died in relative obscurity", many notable people have died in poverty, forgetten by their age, without losing their historical notability at all. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is for this reason I did not offer an opinion on the keep or delete. I don't know whether he is important or not just from that - but from reading the article I get the idea he wasn't. Not strongly enough to say even weak delete though. - (Ninsaneja 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

• keep - the issue isn't whether the current article is referenced, but whether there is a likeliohood that references could be found. Indciations are that there are references to be found as evidenced by the results from Dhartung's research. -- Whpq 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per EliminatorJR. Robert Rozehnal, of Duke University, indicates in his paper "From Sufi Practice to Scholarly Praxis: Some Reflections on the Lessons of Fieldwork for the Study of Islam" that his forthcoming book will be discussing more about Shahidullah Faridi. Someone with access should also take a look at Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond by Carl W. Ernst and Bruce B. Lawrence. --Bejnar 00:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable per EliminatorJR and Bejnar. If we removed everyone who died in obscurity, we'd have to remove the Virgin Mary, Vincent van Gogh, Nikita Khrushchev, and a host of extremely notable individuals. --Charlene 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EliminatorJR, Bejnar and Charlene (sorry forgot sigs) --Webkami 11:12, 8 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.