Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad

:{{la|Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Mirza_Ghulam_Ahmad Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Criticism of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad}})

Content fork of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad containing material that was rejected at that article's own talkpage on multiple policy grounds, including sourcing and neutrality. If it isn't valid content even as part of a parent topic, it's surely invalid to stand alone (this aspect of the topic being independently notable is an even higher threshold). Note: original editor here was multiply blocked for trying to repeatedly insert it into that article. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to the relevant article if the content meets criteria for inclusion. Inappropriate article topic as a standalone article. Edison (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as these citations are self-published attack pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Bladesmulti.--Peaceworld 09:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion: All sources can be verified from documents that are written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmed himself and our viewable on the official Ahamdi website. Other sources such as those of critics have also been cited. Adjutor101 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Or rather *Speedy delete I think the policy was to use "reliable" sources. If we start quoting every itty bitty website which is basically used as hate campaigns then the whole encyclopedia will go to the dogs and non neutral will become an ancient tradition.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – The article appears to be well sourced and the subject is notable. Specific concerns should be addressed by editing rather than through deletion. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete this article is mostly WP:Original Research and uses unreliable, un-academic, and biased partisan sources. Sources such as The Qadiani Problem, Qadianism - A Critical Study, Qadiyaniat: An Analytical Survey etc. donnot meet any Wiki referencing guideline. (The term Qadiani itself is a derogatory slur!)--Nawabmalhi (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep There a lot of reliable sources in this article and the subject is very notable. Assimifne (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)— Assimifne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::the 1 or 2 reliable sources used contradict or donnot match the article content they seem to be thrown in....the 'subject' has his own page, please read responses above. There is no need for Original Research hate pages--Nawabmalhi (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

::: Please check the sources. They are from the Official website of the "ahmedi" religion. References from books of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed and his critics have also been provided. Adjutor101 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

::::Taking quotes and interpreting yourself with out a secondary source is original research.--Nawabmalhi (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Why this article should be deleted? It has a lot of sources. Moreover, user Nawabmalhi and Peaceworld111 voted for deletion just because this "Mirza Gulam" is their leader. Rimidogla (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC) — Rimidogla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

: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.