Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi
: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 delete. The spirit of WP:BLP1E is a combination of the core of the biographies of living persons policy (BLP), which has special emphasis as a measure of avoiding doing harm on otherwise-low-profile individuals, its tie-in to the neutral point of view policy (NPOV) (more specifically undue weight and bias), and general notability. BLP1E is really just for bright-line cases where you can safely ignore the neutral-and-balanced-biography analysis of content because the person is himself otherwise unnotable and the biography portion therefore simply doesn't matter. Here, although the person mentioned might incidentally be notable on some technicality, the article overwhelmingly acts to cover a negative event in the person's life. The event itself has no article of its own, while this article otherwise makes no attempt to serve as a proper biography. That said, this should be considered a semi-soft delete due to the assertion that the person might be notable, so feel free to re-create the article as a well-sourced, balanced biography, and then, should there then be a question of whether the individual is notable, another AfD can take place. slakr\ talk / 05:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
=[[Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi]]=
:{{la|Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi}} – (
:({{Find sources|Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi}})
Person who is noted, and only then a bit, for a single thing. I can't see that any of the sources discuss him outside of his commentary that lead to him no longer being vice chancellor. This is basically a rehash of a single run of news articles and falls under Wikipedia:BLP#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The very definition of violating notability for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment By WP:PROF#6, the vice-chancellor of a major academic institution is automatically notable - so dismissal from such a post can hardly count as WP:BLP1E. And the Darul Uloom Deoband, as the leading seminary of one of the major movements in contemporary Islam, is certainly at least a major teaching institution and, at the very least, an argument needs to be made as to why WP:PROF#6 should not apply in this case. Even if it does not apply, the post also seems to have some religious standing and, while we seem to have no explicit specific notability guidelines for religious officials, there does seem to be agreement on a strong presumption of notability for holders of certain Christian religious posts, and we might at least want to guard against systemic bias by considering whether this post would be comparable. PWilkinson (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I think he clears WP:NACADEMICS because he was vice-chancellor of Darul Uloom Deoband. Jyoti (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (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.