Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Shaikh (2nd nomination)

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. Is someone can find better sources then feel free to recreate this. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh

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

Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Finding sources in going to be complicated by the lack of English, online coverage of academics like this and the fact that this is quite a common name. However, I'm unable to find any second-party, reliable sources concerning Shaikh apart from the mention in the List of 500 most influential Muslims (warning, 43 Mb pdf), which is published by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre. To me, however, this alone doesn't establish notability, as it appears to be a moderate Islamic think-tank giving a moderate Islamic scholar an honour (and there are 500 of them). There may be other sources out there, but with the coverage I've found I can't say it satisfies the biographical notability guideline. -- Lear's Fool 11:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of 500 influential Muslims also says he was ranked the 4th most influential Muslim in the world by a 2009 Reuters poll, but I'm unable to find the source itself. If that turned up, I feel it would probably be enough to support an article (with a rewrite). -- Lear's Fool 11:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lear's, 4th most influential Muslim in the world, 2009 Reuters poll, reference updated in the article. What needs to be re-written further? Please elaborate.ThanksMessengerOfPeace (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not voting Delete, because this is an area of Wikipedia where we could use more coverage, but the sources are weak. Since the IIPC broadcasts in English it seems possible that more printed materials may exist. Couldn't Shaikh have written some articles for English-language newspapers? Might there not be English-language reviews of his work? The 2009 Reuters poll mentioned above is only an online poll of anyone who happened to go and click a button on the web page, so we would not usually count that as any indication of notability. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (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.