Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Sulaimān Nūri

This page should not be considered for deletion as it is based on true references which are reliable and neutral.Also it is likely to follow wikipedia guidelines and rules.So it should be removed from Articles for deletion.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadulhassan2 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sulaimān Nūri

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A person in the religious lineage of a small Pakistani sect. No reliable sources quoted. One of a string of recently created articles by the same editor. Delete or draftify. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This and similar articles are not encyclopaedically written but I think their notability is open to debate. We regard all bishops of major Christian denominations as notable, but I don’t think we have clear guidelines for Islam. There’s a case that the head of a tariqa in a country is automatically notable. I’m not !voting on this one but would be interested in working with some editors in drafting some notability guidelines for Muslim bios. Please leave a note on my talk page if you’re interested. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- best to approximate WP:NBISHOP for Islam until other standards can be developed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even NBISHOP (which is an essay, not a policy) requires "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources". The article has been AfD's because of lack of such sources. Moreover, a high-ranking official of the Catholic Church usually is, I am sorry to say, of a different calibre than a village "holy man", hardly known beyond the nearest town, and mostly just a name in the religious lineage that each and every South Asian sect must compulsorily offer for its faithful. For Shah Sulaimān Nūri, do you see any real information other than the fact that he was "learned and pious" and his parents were "kind and noble"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all,User :Kashmiri I respect your point of view about this article.I want to say that he is not just "learned and pious" or just a "kind and noble" personality.He is a historical personality in the 16th century.You can see his historical presence in the existing article, Muhammad Qadiri in the title of "Golden Chain".so he was not just a noble and learned man,he was a man with a history in Qadiriyya silsila.While the fact that he is hardly known beyond the nearest town is totally baseless.Why would someone from 200 km or 300 km away write book on him if he is hardly known beyond the nearest town?.And in case of reliable and independent sources,you can watch the sources that these sources have no directly link with the "personality".so i just request you to reconsider your view about this article..Thank you so much.User:Saadulhassan2

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.