Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources about this scholar. Excluding youtube, I don't see that The Muslim 500 is a reliable source (or says much) and the other is his personal website. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning towards Keep) -- The Muslim500 is described well at The 500 Most Influential Muslims -- its release has been covered in sources such as the Washington Post, The Independent, Reuters, Times of India; I think that it leans towards notability for the subject, but I'll need to look more on what was said about him to be sure. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a chance to look through the Muslim 500 list and in areas where WP is well represented (sports, finance, science), the figures included all are clearly above GNG; "Preachers and Spiritual Guides" is less well represented here, but I have no reason to believe that the notability requirements there for the list would be lower. Muhammad Awan has appeared multiple years. Thus Keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Since he is the Sheikh (leader) of a major Islamic Sufi mystical Order, perhaps his notability should be treated in the same way as other religious figures? See WP:RELPEOPLE. Esowteric+Talk 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:. I am not sure if "Ameer" is part of his name or if it is just a title. Before I cleaned up the article, there was an unsourced movement parameter in the infobox: Tanzeem Alikhwan. There does seem to be somebody named Muhammad Akram Awan who is head of this movement from Chakwal, according to this newspaper article and a couple of GBooks hits for "Muhammad Akram Awan" (skip the ones beginning with "Malik Muhammad..."). "Ameer" was born in the Chakwal region, so I wonder if he and the Tanzeem guy are the same, because I cannot find anything about this in the sources of the wiki-article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a feeling that Ameer is a transliteration of the honorific title, Emir. Though not a reliable source, his Facebook info page is entitled "Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" and in the description he is referred to as "Shaikh Muhammad Akram Awan". One post refers to him as "Hazrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" (Hazrat or Hadhrat being another, more elevated honorific meaning [His] "Presence"). Again, although a primary source, the Naqshbandi Owaisiah site refers to him as "Shaikh Muhammad Akram Awan" and (in the chain of transmission) as "Hadhrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan". Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim500 list calls him Sheikh Muhammad, so my guess is that the sources for Tanzeem Alikhwan would be referring to him; so I would consider that part of the evidence for his notability. Perhaps see also his FB public page: [1] which has about 10,000 likes. There he is called "Hazrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2016 (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.