Hi, This page was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2023 and the nominator argued that there was nothing beyond the subject's solemnizing Imran Khan's marriage. I tried and found some Urdu sources that I indicated in the AfD including the subject being discussed on several pages in Al-Bayyinat, a journal published by Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia (the author and publisher appear to be independent from the subject and the journal is seen reliable on subject matter as far as I know). Similarly, I found a source from BBC Urdu discussing subject's association in 1995 Pakistani coup d'état attempt. The nominator wrongly commented that BBC 4 lines paragraph is nothing more than discussion about his participation in former PM's marriage ceremony, and passing mentions in reliable sources doesn't count towards notability. I am seriously not sure whether the BBC Urdu paragraph is a passing mention or is it the coverage in Al-Bayyinaat? I believe the AfD should get more time to sort out these issues, and I'm really not sure if the last participant who voted delete had been through Urdu sources or not. There is definitely no consensus currently in my opinion and the discussion should be given a relist and allowed for another week. I tried raising this issue with the closer but they declined any help. Best ─ The Aafī(talk)18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's participation outside solemnizing PM's marriage is explicitly noted in this reliable source from 2017 that, In fact, Mufti Saeed, a cleric arrested from Rawalpindi at the time, had not only been a regular at some of the garrison dars sessions but was also encouraged by the then commander of the 10-Corps Lieutenant General Malik and this is what Google translate gives for the BBC paragraph It is said that Brigadier Mustansarbullah gave some of his papers to a man named Mufti Saeed and instructed them to be burnt and destroyed. Later, the military authorities recovered a copy of the speech from Mufti Saeed, which was to be delivered by Major General Zaheerul Islam Abbasi after taking over the power of the country. Mufti Saeed was the only person with these military officers who was aware of every issue. This is clear according to these sources that the subject played an important role in 1995 Operation Khilafah in Pakistan, if not the most important role. Unfortunately, these resources did not receive any discussion in the AfD, and I was, in such a case, hoping for a relist, but I don't know what made the closer delete it. ─ The Aafī(talk)18:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Aafī(talk). You have several problems here. The first is that it is difficult for people without local knowledge to determine how independent some of the sources are that you cite, hence the easy option is to disregard them. The second is that there is a difference between what is important, and what is (in a Wikipedia sense) notable. In an ideal world, one would hope to find a Wikipedia article on all important subjects, but alas the world is not ideal. I would certainly agree that the person in question appears to have played a significant role in the coup attempt, although it would have been better if this was more clearly stated. If Al-Bayyinat is truly an independent source, then five pages devoted to this cleric would count as being significant enough as far as I'm concerned, even if the content is largely descriptive. The website devoted to them seems to promotional and therefore useful only as a possible guide to their publications, if details of these can be found elsewhere. Whilst it is difficult to comment further without seeing the original article (see my previous comment), it is not clear to me that this person is definitely non-notable. However, this very much depends on the independence of the Al-Bayyinat source, so it may be useful if you could give some information about the publication. (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
P.S. The Google translation of the BBC article could be better. As it stands "every issue" could mean all details of the plot, or just those religious matters related to it. Is it clearer in the original language what is meant? (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Hi @Edwin of Northumbria, The article uses the sentence مفتی سعید ان فوجی افسران کے ساتھ وہ واحد شخص تھے جو ہر معاملے سے آگاہ تھے۔ which indeed means every issue and it should refer to all details of the plot. The source does not say "religious matters", for example, as the Herald says, had not only been a regular at some of the garrison dars sessions and in that, it appears that he was among the religious leads of the coup attempt, but was concerned about everything since he is also the person who has been reported to have prepared the speech that Gen Abbasi was supposed to deliver after taking over. I'd say three things about the Al-Bayyinaat article: 1: It is not self-published (but it has a publisher). 2: The author and the publisher do not appear to be closely connected to the subject. 3: The source is not a primary one. Given this, I am not sure what "independence" of this source is required? ─ The Aafī(talk)04:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much a definition of independence, but just to be clear, is the source of a similar religious faction to the cleric?
Also could just the Urdu word for "issue" be translated as "detail" here? (i.e. Can it be translated into different English words in different contexts?). I say this only because the English sentence doesn't sound quite right, and my experience of translation tells that some degree of understanding may have been lost in the process here.
@Edwin of Northumbria: I'm not exactly sure if the cleric follows the Deobandi faction or not. However, the promotional source that you noted about his publications, does say that he studied with some of the Deobandi scholars. Following his thoughts on the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary's establishment, he received considerable criticism. Bayyinaat is published by Jamia Uloom-ul-Islamia, a Deobandi Islamic seminary. But there is definitely a thing, the cleric and the source, do come from something within Sunni Islam and bias would not allow other factions cover them. I hope this helps. ─ The Aafī(talk)05:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwin of Northumbria: The Bayyinat article analyses cleric's statements about the establishment of Deoband seminary in which he has been reported to claim that the seminary had received favors from British Indian government. ─ The Aafī(talk)06:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
relist I understand the close and it's not unreasonable. But given the foreign-language sources and the issues raised, neither is a relist. This is not a clear-cut situation (as evidenced by the discussion above) and it seems like relisting is probably the best way to move forward. That said, my guess is we are likely to end up back at delete--but who knows. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist To my reading the closer somewhat elided the discussion. I reach that conclusion because of the exchange on the closer's talk page where they frame their close on the basis of the analysis that rejected the sources and subsequent concurrence with that original rejection. However, that original rejection contained misrepresentation of the sources (never counter-refuted), so subsequent endorsement, is only endorsement of mistaken analysis. I'd agree with those above, further discussion of the sources is necessary to obtain consensus, as there appears none to me at the point this was closed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The interpretation of the sources in the discussion wasn't perfect, but in my view, when the nominator brings up certain sources at this DRV, while it does clarify a few things, it doesn't quite amount to: "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". The subject is not an unimportant figure and was mentioned in the context of important events, but the added clarifications on top of what was said in the AfD do not convert into compelling evidence that a different outcome would have been produced if everything was taken into account. —Alalch E.13:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not believe this. As you admit that the interpretation of the sources wasn't perfect, so is the outcome not perfect. Given what has already been produced, a detailed five-pages [at the least] from Bayyinat (that's quite significant) and then the clerics role in the coup demonstrated by several reliable sources such as Herald Dawn, BBC Urdu, put together with this from Telegraph, explicitly help the subject meet WP:NBASIC#1. Even if that's not acceptable to others, and a consensus is not achieved, that's once again a "no-consensus" and not a "delete" outcome if I were to evaluate such a discussion and analysis. I'll just apply common sense and ignore all rules that prevent the improvement of this encyclopedia because this article seriously does benefit the encyclopedia. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)05:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
