Talk:Abdul Qadir Jilani (Pakistani scholar)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam: Sunni Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a person, but which fails to assert the importance of its subject, because it is a biography of a living person - my sheikh. It is a true depiction of the facts.--Munibhussain (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedy deleted because the reason for deletion is invalid and unclear. The Sheikh is much revered and all that has been stated in the article is factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munibhussain (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Much revered", perhaps, but as it seems he is also a promoter of terrorism caution should be exercised in affording him publicity.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Please consult the document concerning notability of people here: WP:BIO . This explains the standards by which Wikipedia establishes notability. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that to be eligible for deletion under WP:CSD A7 the article must not make any claim of importance, to delete an article on notability grounds requires a proposed deletion or an Articles for Deletion nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcom ruling

I have reinstated this. It was deleted by user 5.68.240.84 on 5 February without comment. If Jilani is notable at all, then I think this ruling is certainly worthy of mention. SDavies (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why refer to Jilani having "made comments with reference to the shooting dead in early 2011 of the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer" without saying what the comments were - at least in general terms. A complaint would not be made about him having "made comments", it was what he said that must have caused concern to some.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were fairly long, from memory. The subsequent text in this section makes clear why the comments were controversial. But I wouldn't object to you adding a summary of the comments if you think appropriate. --SDavies (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]