Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari

:{{la|Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_ibn_Adam_al-Kawthari Stats])

:({{Find sources|Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari}})

Very poorly sourced. Many refs are dead-links and those that remain are mostly the York University own Newspaper and re-quotes of these reports by other groups and blogs. Nothing from a substantial source.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• keep the dead links are due to a not being archived, otherwise is fine Pass a Method talk 18:41, 19 January 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^(talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete The "references" here are a joke. iPlayer episodes, multiple links to the main page of the Yorker (as mentioned), and multiple self-published non-reliable websites such as Turath and Whitethreadpress. The only reliable sources simply mention that the subject exists, he studied at a college and the Yorker article says he once caused controversy. Fails WP:GNG because the coverage is not extensive; WP:PEOPLE because of the only three sources which are actually reliable two give passing mentions and one is a short piece about the controversy; and WP:SCHOLAR because this supposed Islamic "scholar" has received no prestigious awards, significant discoveries nor does he pass any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not overly familiar with the conditions needed for an individual to be considered a scholar. It is worth noting however, that Kawthari has completed the Dars-i Nizami course at Darul Uloom Bury. This is a fairly detailed curriculum used in the sub continent to determine whether an individual is authorised to be a scholar. Please read "From Behind the Curtain: A Study of Girls' Madrasa in India" by Mareike Jule Winkelmann for further details. Additionally, a number of independent sources have referred to Kawthari as a scholar. For example, please read the article "'The frontier is where the Jews live': a Case of Israeli 'Democratic Colonialism'" by Nicola Perugini (https://www.academia.edu/5344153/The_frontier_is_where_the_Jews_live_a_Case_of_Israeli_Democratic_Colonialism) where Kawthari is referred to as a Mufti. He is also referred to as a scholar here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HT8CAqlycW0C&pg=PA41&dq=Ibn+Adam+al-Kawthari&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ADlUq3aC63J0AWFlYGIBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ibn%20Adam%20al-Kawthari&f=false) and here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=39pZYTUv-jMC&pg=PA306&dq=Ibn+Adam+al-Kawthari&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ADlUq3aC63J0AWFlYGIBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Ibn%20Adam%20al-Kawthari&f=false). Is this not sufficient in justifying that Kawthari should be considered an Islamic scholar? The article as it stands requires a fair amount of work. However, I don't think we should be too hasty in deleting it.RookTaker (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

:*It's really proper to become familiar with the conditions for an individual to be considered notable, not be a scholar. Since you're new, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Being an Islamic scholar isn't the issue here because being an Islamic scholar doesn't make one notable; the criteria here is about the significance of coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Self promotion, the refs are all dead or unreliable. Szzuk (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Nothing else there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 29 January 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.