Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaikh muhibbullah allahabadi

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 keep. I think there is sufficient consensus for this. I note that it's not a BLP, as one of the delete comments suggested. I urge Tokyogirl79 to keep track if further semi-potection is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Shaikh Muhibullah Allahabadi

Shaikh Muhibullah Allahabadi (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)

Ajeem95 (talk | bincang (ms) | cont) 08:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and help me to improve it. Some people write their requests of article as if it were a stub. I can't believe we did not have this article of an important (I guess also notable) sufi thinker while we have so many pages on Islam and violence. Strange enough... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Restoring the AfD to its original state. @Usaidfarooqui:, please do not blank the page and/or replace the text with article information in an attempt to keep the page from getting deleted. Not only will it not work, but it comes across as vandalism and could run the risk of you getting blocked if you continue doing this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am finding evidence of someone by this name in texts like this: [1], which refers to him by the additional name of Sheikh Ibn Arabi II. I'm unsure if this is the same person or not, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Enough hits in google books to meet GNG. Probably more hits in Urdu or Arabic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Delete does not appear to meet notability standards. Article reads like a personal essay, and per BLP should be cut drastically if it is retained, since it has so few ILC.Onel5969 (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, You just caught the hijacked version by Usaid again. He's notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. A prominent scholar. A Google Books Search, preview available in English shows plenty of commentary even without spelling variants. The article could use improvement, but that is a different issue. There is no shortage of sources. No reason for the nomination was given. There is no valid reason. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks for the heads up Dr. Blofeld! Changing my opinion to keep.Onel5969 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Starting yesterday, a lot of reliable sources were added with proper formatting. I think this was a case of an article about a notable subject just being too fanpage-ish and poorly written at first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I've semi'd the page for 24 hours since there has been some repeated efforts to add unsourced, non-neutral, and copyvio material to the article. I know that we typically don't like to do this while an article is at AfD, but the attempts to re-add the material has been fairly extensive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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.