Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayedna Hatim

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayedna Hatim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person doesn't look like notable under Wikipedia Policy.Though I am not very sure about it. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has provided eleven references that mention this early leader of the Dawoodi Bohra sect, a sect that (if its Wikipedia article is to believed) counts one million adherents. I can't verify the references, but assuming good faith, I believe that so much coverage denotes notability for a historic figure. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WikiDan61. The references provided should be AGF-ed, unless there is some tangible evidence to question them. Note that this book[1] mentions Syedna Hatim's grave as an important place of pilgrimage. Nsk92 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something is seriously wrong with Wikipedia if editors keep bringing articles to AfD despite being "not very sure about it". Shreevatsa (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be ample evidence for the importance of this fellow to the Moslems and as a historical/religious figure. The article needs some cleanup and wikification, but it has been improving markedly since I rescued it from being speedy'd. The author seems motivated to continue improving it. Zelse81 (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs somebody to go through the article with a fine toothed comb and turn it into something a monolingual non-specialist will be able to understand, but especially in difficult cases like this randomly deleting important topics while we remain oblivious that we've just lopped off a century of someone's history can't possibly be our best strategy.Minnowtaur (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WikiDan61 Sherenk (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.