Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Nadwi (2nd nomination)

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 delete. And salt. Further discussion can occur at DRV and other appropriate venues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahauddeen Nadwi

[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)

G4 speedy delete tag was deleted (without explanation) by someone else than the creator. G4 does apply and this article should additionally be salted. MrClog (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The version we have now (despite its stubbiness) contains enough additional material compared to the version that was deleted in 2011 that I don't think this should be a G4 case; we should continue to discuss the article here instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 speedy deleted and salted the original title. Maybe he can weigh in here. --MrClog (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did honor a REFUND request and think now that it is in mainspace that an AfD discussion would be beneficial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I thank you for honouring my refund request, but I would like to take you up on what I feel is a couple of pertinent details. My request was for draftification not userification. The advantage of draftification would have been it would have been a common location to which any could have contributed. As a result @Suhail hidaya could claim they were not aware of that version at User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. If it was at draft and that draft had been trumped by a mainspace over the top I would have been miffed but I'm not sure that move is against policy or guidelines. (I'd also note I think this is salted against a move from userspace to draftspace but I'm not sure on that).Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt: The only claim to notability is being listed at The 500 Most Influential Muslims and that's not a free pass to notability. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and most of the sources are not even reliable. The article is also a victim of WP:REFBOMB.GSS ^💬 04:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since it was recreated under a different title, I feel all the previous participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi must be pingged here for their inputs. GSS ^💬 05:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With whatever salting is required, however no prejudice to the version at User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi being re-introduced if good faith improvements achieved and agreed by closer Barkeep49 or DRV. My personal belief is their some possibility/probability of the subject has notability but investigating the same is not highest on my priority list at the moment nor should it be raised so by attempts to raise this at AfD. @Suhail hidaya and Kunchava KK ... between WP:CITEBOMBing, removing WP:AFD templates, bypassing WP:DRV, failure to assign to WikiProjects, and seemingly failing to discuss and collaberate on a article subject to discretionary ipa and blp sanctions you are deemed aware of you are making it far more difficult for others to re-introduce this to an article ... I expect you to have a competent response and indications you understand the problems you are causing and indications this will not happen again. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The AfD template has just been removed from article for the second time (by an anon IP) and I have just spent my time reverting this removal and I am now very grumpy. Is their no sign of Wikipedia:Competence is required being displayed by some who wish to retain this article? Because they are very much going the wrong way about it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and reintroduce draft User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi for discussion (As per @Djm-leighpark:).--Irshadpp (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling for the re-introduction of User:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, that would need to go through process, and I would not advocate it re-introduction to mainspace until notability can be reasonably show (and the article content) and per the article shown above. Obviously someone may show notability here by e.g. WP:THREE but in essence I'm not wasting my time at present working through the citebombing. Draftifying this WP:CFORK would probably have been better than AfD'ing it as this could get a little messy .... deep joy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me too not calling to introduce the draft to the main space now. I asked for discussion like AFC.--Irshadpp (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bahauddeen Nadwi

zproxy.org