Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One bot (talk | contribs) at 06:00, 10 March 2013 (Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 no consensus. Relisted twice, no consensus reached. Give the article some time to breathe and see if additional information/sources are added before filing again. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 21:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ibrahim Yukpasi

Ibrahim Yukpasi (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)

The only reference for this stub is a book citing the rather non-neutral claim that a religious movement is peaceful; it does not directly relate to the subject. It's been a few years and not a single source has been brought to prove the notability of the actual subject of the article himself. I can't see any reason to keep this article here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Some one had removed reliable info,which i restored.Must be kept.Msoamu (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Said info still seems to be based on non-English sources, thus I'm still skeptical about the factuality of the article and the notability of the subject. Per Misplaced Pages policy, it is acceptable for editors to provide their own translations for sources, to an extent. Would you be willing to do that so sources can be directly quoted? Or possibly provide real brief translations of snippets on the article's talk page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is a mess, however, subject seems to be notable, a book was written about him (in Urdu). His name seems to be "Sayyid Shamsuddīn K̲h̲vājah Ibrāhīm Yakpāsī" (1358-1446), very little was written about him in English. The article needs expert attention. I asked for help at WT:ISLAM. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation9 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment-badly written article on a probably notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Are we sure "probably notable" is grounds for keeping an article - especially if it's mentioned in a single non-English source? That's not rhetorical or an attempt to make a point, I'm actually asking because I'm not sure myself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep-I have tried to edit it.It is much notable and should be on wikipedia. Shabiha (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (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.