Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ffm 18:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No sources for notability at all. While I am sure he is a nice person, it seems somebody just made a fan page for their favorite religious preacher. This happens very frequently on Wikipedia with articles on Muslim religious figures and it isn't really a good basis for an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the guy's remarkably long name, he's not at all notable, as far as I can see. Nyttend (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Short googling shows plenty of sources for him. Here's a nice background article[1], where he's called as a spiritual leader of Sufi's. As our article Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki notes, he was influential enough that another cleric wrote a book attacking his writings. This calls him "the most highly acclaimed and respected scholar (Shaykh) in Makkah (Mecca)." . A rather hagiographic obituary[2]. This should already be enough to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG, and the vast majority of the sources must be in Arabic. An interesting side question is whether his position as a teacher in the Holy Mosque in Mecca would be sufficiently notable alone... – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a copy of the article in Wikipedia or the other way around? At least there is something to roll-back if the current version is deemed copyvio. – Sadalmelik ☎ 19:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but this article is indeed written rather fanboyish. The person is a good subject for a WP article, but the article itself is a mess. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (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.