Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman

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. Keep !votes failed to provide proper policy based reasons. Page views are not part of the notability criteria. Sarah-Jane (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman (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)

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

BLP of a head of an unremarkable religious group, entirely self-sourced and/or promotional (Sultan ul Faqr Publications, now deleted, including sultan-ul-faqr.com website, are owned by the group). kashmiri ^TALK 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are significant notability and reliable sources as well as independent sources for the article to exist.Markangle11 (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: As a principal contributor to the article, you are expected to abstain from !voting. kashmiri ^TALK 00:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's bullshit, xe's encouraged to comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as I found a few links at Books but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Per WP:NPOV, which states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", this article is perfectly acceptable and meets the criteria for neutral point of view. I see no sign of promotion especially because it uses impartial tone and cites sources apart from primary which are verifiable under WP:V such as this[1], this[2], this[3], etc. User:Remi143 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think person seems notable. Article got mammoth 15,000 views on 21st October, daily this article is getting around 1,000 views. Though number of views is not criteria to Keep article still so many people reading and searching about him so he is notable. It is not article about film or song or porn to get unnecessary large views, it is article about religious person. Article does have many sources, still we may need Urdu language sources to further establish his notability. He is shaikh of one sect of Islam, so he is notable. --Human3015^TALK  22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The stats are somehow unusual - a few related articles also got incomparably more hits on 22 and 23 October.[4], [5], Not sure whether that's related to some sudden public interest in the topics. kashmiri ^TALK 01:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'd like to add that the article started to continously attract ~1000 views/day on 2 September and even ~6000/day after 4 November. August seems pretty empty, apart from the occasional visitor. Well-known articles like Muhammad and Ali usually only result in 5k-6k and ~1200 views a day respectively. I have a feeling that the suspicious view stats for Najib-ur-Rehman are manipulated by bots. By the way, 23/24 October coincided with the Ashura holiday. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: As the creator of the article i would like to clarify that special care was taken to provide a neutral and encyclopedic view of the biography. The article accounts for a lot of viewership [6]. Provided in the article are all facts accompanied with sources outside of the directly related websites to ensure that content is based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samm.jutt (talk • contribs) 06:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Nope, that's mostly religious blah blah. Who cares about hour of birth or weekday of birth? Describing subject's dreams or unsubstantiated tales from childhood is also non-encyclopaedic and important only for an ardent devotee, not anyone else. The article is full of Urdu and Arabic titles of no relevance or explanation. Peacock terms are extremely annoying ("best", "most famous", "most successful"). Sources are nearly exclusively to the guy's own books. The problem is, if you take away what's wrong, nothing will remain. Hence, delete or at best userfy until rewritten in accordance with MOS:BLP. kashmiri ^TALK 12:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the three linked by Remi, second is a "book" taken from Wikipedia, 1 and 3 are variations of the same fawning adoration posted on multiple non reliable sources with no sign of Abdur Rehman, Lahore being an independent expert. Stats are interesting but not a sign of notability. Not all sects are worthy of the same coverage Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarwari Qadiri. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article has section copied straight from those linked pages mentioned above so may need to be deleted as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep:I see that WP:N has already been met after looking at this 15,000 views so no issues there. The 2 sources are WP:RS because both are known websites WP:Third-party sources referenced in many other Wikipedia articles as their notability is higher and per the policy are known for "peer review and fact-checking". I see published books cited in the article as well "entirely independent of the subject being covered" such as "Sarwari Qadiri Order. India: General Books LLC.ISBN 9781158473861." and "Attar, Farid al-Din. Muslim Saints and Mystics: Episodes from the Tadhkirat Al-Auliya’ ('Memorial of the Saints'). Translated by A.J. Arberry. London, England.: Penguin (Non-Classics), 1990.ISBN 0-14-019264-6". Also, the discussion here isnt about sects so doesnt matter. The biographical article stands WP:V. Few words maybe paraphrased to make the article strictly encyclopedic but that is not the criteria for AfD per WP:Deletion policy.JugniSQ (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock of shit. WP:N makes no mention of views, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Any farcical attempt to claim the wordpress powered saintsofislam as a reliable source is quickly kaboshed by a look at their disclaimer, "This site contains copyrighted material contributed by users". Similarly a look at hamariweb will show it is also not a reliable source. The author of that piece is a user, the site itslef is run by a marketing firm. The Sarwari Qadiri Order book is just a collection of Wikipedia articles (catorgorised as "Computers › Programming Languages › General" so clearly the "editors" haven't even read it) so not a reliable source. The Muslim Saints and Mystics book was published in 1990, (well before this guy became "Shaikh", before he even started his "search for divine truth") and is used to verify a quote about someone else entirely. It has no coverage of this guy. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Being uncivil to make your point does not work at Wikipedia. You may as well read that yourself. In this era, the higher the number of views of a particular website or page, the higher is its ranking it terms of its popularity. This is the criteria for notability which explains why "google search" is listed amongst find sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) in every Wikipedia deletion discussion to check whether the article meets WP:V. Most Wikipedia editors heavily rely upon using "google search" to reference articles. So first clarify yourself as to the criteria of judging the international popularity and notability standards. Hence, undoubtedly the article stands WP:N. Note that your foul language violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA. You must "avoid profane and offensive language" and “participate in a respectful way” in discussions especially those related to religion. You are strongly recommended to "strike out your uncivil comment, or re-word it neutrally'".JugniSQ (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I need to point out that accounts: User:Remi143, User:Markangle11 and User:samm.jutt all keep promoting this same religious group headed by Sultan Mohammad Najib Ur Rehman, they all have edited the same articles in precisely the same way, spamming with links to the group's publications and website.[7] [8] [9]. Meatpuppetry comes to mind, so I'd be cautious when counting "keep" !votes here. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: Use WP:Noticeboards for that because this information is irrelevant to judge the criteria for an article to stand WP:V. AfD decisions are taken purely on the basis of valid reasoning per Wikipedia policies. Let the admin handle it. JugniSQ (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: even searching for the Arabic-script name results in a meager 24 hits, after Google had "omitted some entries very similar to the 24 already displayed." None of them would qualify as WP:RS by the way. - HyperGaruda (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: This is irrelevant because the Arabic Google search has no relevance here. As explained above, the international google is the standard search engine to decide the notability of the subject and reliability of sources. This is English Wikipedia and must not be limited to one Arabic search. The article already establishes more than 4 independent reliable sources. It is useless to !vote based on irrelevant assumptions.JugniSQ (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put way too much effort in such an insignificant subject, but it had to be done. None of these sources are usable in determining notability and thus this biography article fails WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) and should be deleted. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. HyperGaruda's analysis of the sources is correct, and I cannot find any reliable sources to replace them with a GBooks or DDG search. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOV. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Being an expert Wikipedian in Islamic issues, verify, I have taken out time for this article and done thorough research so the article may reach a consensus. “Sultan Mohammad Najib ur Rehman” is a writer of Sufism, his books-primarily focused on the teachings of South Asian saints. He is from Pakistan and is commonly known by his title “Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr” such as here[10] and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In 2008, when Pakistan was on the peak of terrorism, he created an organization and named it Tehreek Dawat e Faqr[11] in an effort to spread the teachings of Islam. This system and its method of instruction is quite modern and appeals mostly to the youth. According to Wikipedia’s policy, WP:SCHOLAR, which states that “Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study” the subject of the article does meet notability criteria cited in WP:GNG. What initially looked like any other sect of Islam, turned out to be a systematic organization focused on modern-day Sufism.[12]. He an Urdu writer but some of his books have already been translated into English such as this[13] and this[14]. Per WP:AUTHOR, which states “should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.” In modern Islamic Sufism writings, this person is significant enough to have an article at Wikipedia.

p.s. In response to the comment of QVVERTYVS above, Googlebooks does provide a list of sources such as this [15], this[16], this [17], this[18], this[19], this[20], [21], this[22], this[23], this[24], etc. and per WP:NPOV, the article states obvious facts about birth, life, career, books, instead of opinions. Pixarh (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've verified that you've added your own username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Expert Wikipedians in Islamic issues. I'm not too impressed by that, if you don't mind. Nor am I very impressed by your citing WP policy without any proof; your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry but I am not here to impress but to discuss Qwertyus! And my answer is based on much research all supported by Wikipedia policies. If "ilikeit" worked, AfD discussions, in general, wouldnt have been taking place at all.Pixarh (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pixarh: I have checked every source you've mentioned above. None of them are independent of the subject, since they are written/published by either "Khadim Sultan-ul-Faqr Hazrat Sakhi Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman Madzillah-ul-Aqdus" or affiliated persons and organisations like "Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr". All the policies you've mentioned also demand that "reliable, independent sources" are needed when applying the criteria. Since there is not even a single reliable source that is independent of Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman, this article fails the fundamental notability guideline. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already explained in detail as to why the subject of the article is fundamentally notable and why the article should be kept per Wikipedia's policies. There is no need for further discussion from my part. Pixarh (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per Human3015 and others above stating that it is notable and a useful part of the wikipedia. RailwayScientist (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To the closing admin: this article seems like one of several connected to a deletion spree, where each of the AfDs saw many sock-/meatpuppets related to this investigation. Each article of this series of deletions was problematically (read: primary) sourced with references to Sultan-ul-Faqr or its affiliated organisation Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr, without any notability based on third-party sources. The deletions include this, this, this, this and probably more AfDs having resulted in "delete". - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, this, this and this. All are titles of publications by the same niche publisher affiliated with a faith group in a Pakistani city. kashmiri ^TALK 20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of the unproven claims, the article has significant notability sources to exist.Markangle11 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2015 (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.