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. None of the "keep" !votes are policy based and the meat-/sockpuppeting going on does not help either. Article is promotional, has no independent sourcing. Randykitty (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There doesn't seem to be anything about this publishing house outside of websites tied directly to it or organization's relating to the same religious revival movement (none of which are professionally done). This not only fails WP:ORG but also WP:GNG. This seems like an open and shut case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ARTSPAM. No independent coverage whatsoever, at least in English - fails WP:COMPANY. In fact, this is a publishing arm of Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr, a hardly-notable organisation in Lahore, Pakistan, set up a few years back in order to promote a specific interpretation of the teachings of the mediaeval mystic and poet Sultan Bahoo. kashmiri ^TALK 09:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to closing admin: Please note that this one and several other AFDs on related subjects have been the target of sockpuppetry and several SPAs. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 for more information. Bjelleklang - talk 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Should Not Delete In a country like Pakistan which is targeted for terrorism, I see this publication as spreading Sufism via books which is very crucial and important for the country. All its books are not on one saint. I have just checked its book listt. but seriously its worth something considering the chaos in the country at least its a way of spreading peace. even their books are online for downloading. i dnt think their aim is commercial. Seems informational. Disregard WP:ARTSPAM as it is not sale-oriented. all their books are free online. Disregard WP:COMPANY as it is WP:NOTESAL. Iilluminate (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not To Be Deleted i have viewed this page and I don't find it a promotion as I followed it, all the material in it is free online and is used for spread of Sufism in Pakistan which is a much necessary thing in Pakistan where the country is being hit for terrorism.In a nutshell this page is not an ad or promotion of an organisation as per WP:Neutral point of view this page is not taking any sides but mentioning the original facts based on teachings of sufism. And its content are totally free online so how can it be an advertisement. the afd tag should be removed as this is informative and not only provides knowledge about sufism and true teachings of Sulan bahoo but of different saints also which is a good effort and necessary work to do in Pakistan.DAVIDmosla (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE NOT REQUIRED Couldn't agree more. The article doesn't require a delete...as it is a stand alone article. it is only informational. and Yes Pakistan does require such publications to promote peace plus im relieved to find out such non-profit organizations exist who aim to spread Sufism as its books are downloadable online I jus checked. surely appreciated! remove AfD JugniSQ (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Following what was said above, it's quite convenient that after three consecutive SPIs, we again have some brand new accountsd with the same level of English as a second language and the same tendency to ignore all common formatting conventions for AfD comments. They're also all making the same weak, irrelevant arguments bent on defending this and the related articles on non-notable subjects tied to this organization. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Comment congrats! you are so intelligent and have knowledge of hidden secrets!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iilluminate (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• why are most editors discussing sockpuppetry n not the article itself?? i dont know about others but really what a mess. Also the editors pointing out socketpuppetry are the ones with nil understanding of the article topic which relates to Islamic spirituality. User:MezzoMezzo is prominent and so is this User:kashmiri ...... plz dnt comment or place deletion tags on articles without reading up.

n plz improve article dnt blame each othr. Iilluminate (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the User:MezzoMezzo and User:kashmiri are just giving vague explanation regarding the articles in order to hit a particular organisation demonstrating their biased and suspicious behaviour.They must read the topic in order to get the full understanding so it will be cleared then this article is about knowledge and meaning of the true preachings of Sufism.so i'l vote for keeping this article so users may be acquainted with pearls of knowledge after reading this article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: Accused parties may also comment see Defending yourself against claims. Note Some users defending their comments against Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrashid364 182.185.229.16 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment::I just want you to make clear that you should debate on this article not some investigations which i am not aware of.For your kind information I am not defending any user the thing I said earlier was that this is a knowledgable article.Note their biaseness towards some sockpuppet investigation and no relating comment on the article.DAVIDmosla (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — DAVIDmosla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Unnecessary deletion If this publication is observed closely one can notice that it is being publishing books regularly on Sufism and topics related to it. For some those topics are not popular and for others ( a large number ) those topics are treasure and a source of consolation. Publishing books regularly and with ISBN its self discloses its growing popularity and enormous likeness. So i do not see any strong reason to delete this article unless some one is being bigotry. Keith Cawdry (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Keith Cawdry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.