Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

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. Article meets the general notability guideline for inclusion. Nakon 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq

Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq (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)

Back on the 27th of February, during my Delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Kawthar Academy (where the Abu article had been ventured as a merge partner), I opined that both articles ought to be junked. (Two weeks have gone by without any defense appearing at that AfD.) This article contains three dozen sources, not one of which I would describe as a solidly independent RS, and it is written (as I note is typical of these cleric pages created by SPAs) in a florid OR style cribbed from press-releases and pushing the limits of copy-vio (e.g., the first sentence of the "Education" section was pulled from here.). Pax 05:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems that his factional opponents call him a "Sufi" as an insult, and that he is not formally affiliated with Sufism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Noted. I've stricken that word from the rationale so as to not distract discussion from the merits, or lack thereof). Pax 10:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overly promotional puff article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. He hasn't done anything to be notable, but all it takes is for one media outlet to attack one, and you become notorious. As currently written, it is far too much, too promotional, too unreliable. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. He is a notable scholar and religious leader. The article has not been edited by experienced users yet. -- AHLM13 talk 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're !voting keep, strongly, despite not being able to find suitable sources for the article? Pax 22:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being "edited by experienced editors" is quite frankly bollocks - We judge an article on its notability ... Not on whether an experienced editor's edited it or not. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article is promotional and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:BASIC and WP:PROF: not enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. No indication of meeting WP:PROF#C1 except for inclusion in a list of the most influential Muslims, however there are no other sources to back this claim up (WP:PROF requires demonstration from reliable sources); nor is there any indication of meeting any other WP:PROF criteria (it may seem like WP:PROF#C6 may be met because he served as the honourary headmaster at the Madinatul Uloom Al-Islamiyyah, but that is not a significant institution). Esquivalience ^t 01:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hasn't done anything amazing in the world, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. User:Davey2010, really? Have you researched about him. He's enough notable to possess an article on Wiki.-- AHLM13 talk 18:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) -[reply]

• You can't !vote twice, He's not notable at all - If he was I'd of !voted Keep.... –Davey2010^Talk 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a note: Notability is based on coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject (see WP:GNG), not in the traditional sense (i.e. popularity). There's also WP:PROF (which is pretty much a general exception to the general notability guideline for academics that have significantly contributed to his/her field), but I don't think it meets WP:PROF either. Esquivalience ^t 22:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, have gone through the article's (at present) 36 refs, unfortunately not all readily accessable, most are trivial, don't mention or mention him in passing and/or WP:PUFF. Those that are(?) notable plus more from a google search are: [[1]] - The homegrown cleric who loathes the British, {[2]] - Moderates attack ‘fundamentally wrong’ approach to teaching Islam, [[3]] - Riyadh ul Haq sermon on ‘Jewish Fundamentalism’ in full; These are articles from The Times, also [4] one of the Times reporters, Ron Liddle, called him "not just any old Islamic scholar, but perhaps the most important one in Britain today." [[5]] - biography, [[6]] - article discussing Ul Haq in Leicester - "The most influential Muslim in Leicester is Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyadh-ul-Haq, a hardline Muslim cleric who runs the Al Kawthar Academy, a well-known Islamic school in the city." [[7]] - discussing him visiting Canada and the USA, [[8]] - Foundation for Islamic Education in Villanova hosted pro Taliban Imam banned from Canada linked to UK mosque murders -Riyadh ul Haq Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Because the subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the requirements, as would be expected for someone in his postion. Not promotional. Seems npov. `DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 20:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources provided by Coolabahapple (talk · contribs) and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).

  For example, this article from The Times notes:

  Riyadh ul Haq sermon on ‘Jewish Fundamentalism’ in full

  A Times investigation exposes the extreme teachings of Riyadh ul Haq. He delivered this sermon on an unknown date in which he attacked Israel, portrayed all Jews as extremists and claimed that they “are generally allowed to kill a non-Jew without fear of punishment”

  That The Times did an investigation on the subject indicates that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline's definition of "significant coverage").

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Abu Yusuf Riyadh ul Haq to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:35, 14 April 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.