Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumshad Dinawari

: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. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[Mumshad Dinawari]]=

:{{la|Mumshad Dinawari}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mumshad Dinawari}})

Incomprehensible writing about a fringe religious figure. Even if notable, it would be better to delete and start over than attempt to salvage this version. Inter rest (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I didn't see anything on Google and Yahoo, and I agree that if the article were notable it would be better to start on a new page. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete Same thoughts as two previous posts. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
reluctant delete four hits on google books, which seem from what i can see to be only as an entry in a list. no hits at all on academic onefile, on ATLA and ATLA Religion Database, on project muse, on Biography in Context, on wilson web, nothing. for some reason jstor is not letting me search, but really, there seems to be nothing, even with the alternative spellings given in the article. the only reason i'm reluctant is that the guy did exist per google books, and maybe everything about him is in urdu. i even tried various parts of what seems to be his name in the arabic wikipedia, and seems to be nothing. but still... oh well, i tried. clearly he isn't notable in the english speaking world, and i suppose that that's what we're mostly working with here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I have managed to get a few results alf.laylah.wa.laylah missed. Using "Mumshad Dinwari" instead in Google Books gives four other possible sources, which however are probably closely linked with each other. Two are translations of Fariddudin Attar's Tazkirat al-Awliyā and the other two are in books by Idries Shah - who may simply be citing the Tazkirat al-Awliyā (not easy to tell - I don't have immediate access to anything beyond the GBooks snippets from any of these sources). To add to the fun, A.J. Arberry, on page XXXV of the introduction to his [http://www.omphaloskepsis.com/ebooks/pdf/mussm.pdf partial translation of the Tazkirat al-Awliyā] mentions its section on "Memshad al-Dinawari" but considers it a later addition to the work (and he doesn't include it in his translation). I note that this is distinctly at variance with the views that the article as it stands seems to attribute to Arberry - and this unreliability seems to be typical of the contributions of the article's main editor, basically everything beyond the first sentence. And while the subject's presence in the Chishti silsila as teacher of Abu Ishaq Shami, mentioned in the first sentence, is verifiable and deserves (and gets) mention elsewhere in Wikipedia, it is not enough by itself for a separate article. So currently delete. PWilkinson (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2011 (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.