User talk:Djm-leighpark/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because the person has enough notability. He is one of the most influential 500 Muslims of the world and the Vice Chancellor of a prominent Islamic university in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhail hidaya (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The term Islamic university is often used by a seminary/educational institute which I believe generally educates up to what at most what normally be understood to be university level. Therefore I do not see that WP:ACADMEDIC for vice chancellor is authomatically passed on that basis. The 500 most influential may be worth scrutiny. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It should not be speedily deleted. Because he one of the most Influential 500 muslims of the world Kunchava KK (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because citations available, and will be added soon --Irshadpp (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Now there are two citations from two doctoral thesis of universities. Also honorary titles are removed already. --Irshadpp (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

None of those sources demonstrates notability. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi to know why it was deleted. GSS ^💬 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to admin considering CSD

I haven't seen the deleted version, and have only glanced at the Afd, but good faith additional sources have been added and therefore GSD:G4 is likely inappropriate; and alternatives such as AfD would seem appropriate. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The deleted version had more contents then this one and none of the current sources is reliable as per WP:RS. Also, the previous article was deleted for the notability issue which is still a case so, CSD G4 still applies if not draftify for sure. GSS ^💬 16:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick response: Draftify is OK with me as there's a couple of issues in how this was introduced. OK with either Draftify or AfD and perhaps the creator may learn something. Salting might be advised also if it is in scope. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the previous AfD it will definitely attract socks and inexperienced participants so, G4 + salt or draftify + move protect + salt in main will work perfectly IMO. GSS ^💬 16:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the issue, if the article deleted previously. Now if there is enough citations, why don't you consider them. Specially new citations from reliable sources. I don't understand what is going on here.--Irshadpp (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Citations removal

@GSS:, this removal based on what?--Irshadpp (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a reason for spamming the "title"? GSS ^💬 17:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

That titles are violation of honorific titles, correct or not--Irshadpp (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, why that citation removed--Irshadpp (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment above was for the citation not the honorific title. GSS ^💬 17:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@GSS:, Title of book?--Irshadpp (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Irshadpp: To cut a long story short the title= parameter looked excessively long. A short quote in the citation might be useful especially for a non publically available resource. As far as I can tell what you did wasn't a simple syntax error, though that was my assumption at first glance. You removed a similar citation from another article (I would have failed verification for someone else to cross check) just recently so I'd asumme you ought to know what you are doing. That said I would have seen attempts to add/use that source being essentially good faith.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The Muslim 500, The worlds' most influential Muslims was the title. whats wrong with that? You may talking about Quote section, which was too long. Where I remove citation? I have removed same source for repeated years, which content were same. You may verify that.--Irshadpp (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

? "Where I remove citation? I have removed same source for repeated years, which content were same. You may verify that" ... is not making sense. The key point here is are you able and in the process of demonstrating that reference in a suitable manner? As this is at CSD it is perhaps better you concentrate on doing so quickly. That said some of these issues is because this is all being done under a speedy tag ..... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, Thanks--Irshadpp (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid citebombing

Please avoid WP:CITEBOMBing the article. If taken to AfD the notability will likely fall on the quality of the best three sources (see WP:THREE). Please concentrate on leverage content out of the sources to make a better article rather than simply adding references. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Returning to mainspace

For this to return to mainspace three WP:RS sources is the key to what is needed per WP:THREE. But I am also minded the content needs to be carefully expanded to show something significant. Do not attempt to slide this back in avoiding DRV or raise it to DRV trivially. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)