Tauheediyah – "Delete" closure endorsed. With the exception of one dissenting opinion by an established editor, the outcome of this review is the same as the one about Abdul Hakim Ansari below. – Sandstein 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tauheediyah (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Spiritual chain discussed in this page is notable subject as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution was done as WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Spiritual chain satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu due to its unique ideology in spirituality. Many authors have published considerable material in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. If this deletion is merely due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor am accountable. My edits and created few pages have contents independent to my logged in or logged out status. All edits are legitimate to WP policies and guidelines. If any of my edited page need refinement then it should be done in collaborative way rather than deletion. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have fixed the XFD link which was to the wrong debate. KaisaL (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The delete !voters at the AfD actually had policy based reasons for their decisions. The only people to !vote keep were the author and a random IP. Both of which have included no policy based reasoning behind their !vote. Good close. Good delete. --Majora (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC):[reply] Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I think this was closed properly. The AfD was listed for an adequate amount of time and the keep votes did not present any sources or evidence. I also strongly suspect the 2 keep votes were actually meatpuppets. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Deletion review is a place where failures to follow the deletion process correctly are identified and resolved. It is not a place to get a second opinion if the debate didn't go your way. Particularly, we are unable to entertain an argument that the AFD was made at an unsuitable time; with over 5m articles it is inevitable that not every deletion discussion will be made at a time deemed suitable by whatever criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I think pages of Abdul Hakim Ansari and his ideology Tauheediyah should be on Wikipedia. I become familiar to them during my MPhil thesis. Famous scholars have focused on Abdul Hakim Ansari and his given ideology named Tauheediyah. That are good inline to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For instance; ‘’’ شریعت و طریقت(Shariat o Tareeqat) by عبدالرحمان کیلانی (Abdul Rehman Relaani)’’’, published 2006, pages 530. ‘’’ishan-e-manzil: sign-post of salvation by Abdullatif Khan Naqshbandi’’’, published 2002, pages 264. ‘’’Striving for divine union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis by Qamar-ul Huda’’’ published 2005. ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari by Russell Jesse’’’. Book by Abdul Hakim Ansari of title ‘’’ حقیقت وحدت الوجود (Haqeeqat Wahdat ul Wajood)’’’ is included on recommended books list of masters programme ‘’Religious studies’’. 203.124.30.64 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. May i ask for improving them instead of deleting? Many articles are there in wikipedia entries that need too much work. These articles were much developed. - 182.186.40.116 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_July_3&action=edit&section=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Page ‘’’Tauheediyah ‘’’ is according to WP guidelines and policies and i say it should be restored. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn but rewrite No proper arguments were presented on either side. We normally do cover all religious movements for which there is some evidence of real existence, and this seems to be one. There appears to be at least one colony of followers, based on their photo on their facebook page. We have accepted even very small movements. I cannot tell the size of this one, as I can find no information on current membership or if thee is more than the one location--but it might be in the sources, which I cannot read. That there are no third party sources does not matter--we have very frequently accepted articles on religion without them, basically on the grounds that they are good authorities for their own leadership and beliefs. The lack of English sources is irrelevant. The article is promotional, but a brief description would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse No real convincing policy based arguments were made by those seeking to support to mitigate the policy based concerns brought up by those seeking deletion. If someone can write an article that is up to the inclusions standards of the project I suggest they start in draft space. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping\|HighInBC))} 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I still stand by my delete !vote. Also, DGG's "That there are no third party sources does not matter" goes straight against WP:GNG's "sources independent of the subject". Third party sources are needed to at least establish notability. Once that is done, primary sources can be considered to expand the actual content, although secondary/tertiary sources are preferable. We have this criterion to prevent things like self-promo of groups that may just as well have been made up one day. PS: the overturns are rather meaty. - HyperGaruda (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment and question. It is well accepted in literature on ‘theory of science’ that person presenting idea should be credited accordingly. Ideological bases of Tauheediyah are quite strong and interestingly controversial but less protested. For instance, It is important aspect of muslims belief that nobody can see their God, Hell, Paradize, etc. in this life. These topics are sensitive enough to discuss in muslim community. Muhammad Hanif Khan, an unknown person (very little published about his life), initiated this idea and few other similar but hard to believe ideas. His followers such as Abdul Hakim Ansari introduced Sufism and named it Tauheediyah. Ansari became the first in the history of muslim spirituality who presented his complete spiritual syllabus in writings. Ansari wrote books on Khan’s ideas and cited his name. Admittedly, these ideas were never introduced in general public before Ansari. Onward literature also published that supported as well as criticized Khan’s ideas while citing books written by Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spirituality. Who and what is notable? Ideas? Initiator of ideas? Presenter of idea in his books? or the ideology of ideas that is tauheediyah? Followers of tauheediyah are known accepted community in general public due to their different ideas and philosophies. Followers are not unknown if not very famous. Regarding publishing independent sources, all subjects have their specific publishing trends. Spiritual biographical literature in past was mostly published after hundreds years of persons death. We hardly see any example of independent biography of saints in Pakistan. Can anybody cite single example? This literature is mostly narrative and not acceptable on research parameters. I have also looked into other citations on many articles of muslim saints' biographies. I could not see any independent source satisfying WP:GNG ‘sources independent of the subject’. I don’t think that this WP:GNG can be applied, as it is, on biographies of muslim saints. Deletion of these type of pages is not durable solution to me. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) [Special:Contributions/182.189.179.182\|182.189.179.182]] (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Just to name one example of a South-Asian saint with coverage in a reliable independent source: Moinuddin Chishti, who is discussed in a biographical encyclopedia of Sufi saints. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Good example. Let’s have a look on it. Moinuddin Chishti needs no introduction in muslims’ spirituality. He is a saint because he has his ‘spiritual linage’ or ‘golden chain’. It is first and the most authentic parameter of muslim saints. Uwaisi saints have exemption of it. Uwaisi saints never have spiritual linage. Second parameter is the criteria of inclusion of someone in golden chain of any spiritual order. This criteria is set only by founder of any spiritual order. Successor saints only follow these criteria. They cannot change it. If successors change it then they rename the new system. Please don’t ask me of sources of above statements. These are well established conventions and can be seen in each muslims spiritual chain. Short reflection on literature sources on Moinuddin Chishti. Available literature on muslims’ spirituality hardly go back to eighteenth century. Most of the oldest sources are of 1850s and onward. These literatures are books that are narrations about saints. These are mostly exaggerated, superficial, and fiction-like stories. Being very optimistic, if we consider those books authentic then we should have answer to cover information gap of centuries (12th century to 18th century). There was no source of information except words of people’s mouth. Development of onward information sources (independent books and encyclopedias etc.) about the Moinuddin Chishti on the basis of these information sources is authentic and acceptable. Published and widely circulated material about saint Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spiritual chain Tauheediyah is being objected as not independent to subject. Same will be acceptable after publishing by a local vender on payment of few pennies. This situation demands redefining of notability of muslim saints. I liked this very constructive discussion very much. I respect opinion of expert editors and am convinced that in view of present policy guidelines defined in wikipedia. pages on Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari deserve deletion. Consensus for ‘’’endorse’’’ is convincing and understandable.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- decision was based primarily on a lack of reliable sources and all the WP:ILIKEIT in the world from anons won't change that. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tauheediyah – "Delete" closure endorsed. With the exception of one dissenting opinion by an established editor, the outcome of this review is the same as the one about Abdul Hakim Ansari below. – Sandstein 06:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Spiritual chain discussed in this page is notable subject as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution was done as WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Spiritual chain satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu due to its unique ideology in spirituality. Many authors have published considerable material in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. If this deletion is merely due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor am accountable. My edits and created few pages have contents independent to my logged in or logged out status. All edits are legitimate to WP policies and guidelines. If any of my edited page need refinement then it should be done in collaborative way rather than deletion. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the XFD link which was to the wrong debate. KaisaL (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The delete !voters at the AfD actually had policy based reasons for their decisions. The only people to !vote keep were the author and a random IP. Both of which have included no policy based reasoning behind their !vote. Good close. Good delete. --Majora (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think this was closed properly. The AfD was listed for an adequate amount of time and the keep votes did not present any sources or evidence. I also strongly suspect the 2 keep votes were actually meatpuppets. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion review is a place where failures to follow the deletion process correctly are identified and resolved. It is not a place to get a second opinion if the debate didn't go your way. Particularly, we are unable to entertain an argument that the AFD was made at an unsuitable time; with over 5m articles it is inevitable that not every deletion discussion will be made at a time deemed suitable by whatever criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I think pages of Abdul Hakim Ansari and his ideology Tauheediyah should be on Wikipedia. I become familiar to them during my MPhil thesis. Famous scholars have focused on Abdul Hakim Ansari and his given ideology named Tauheediyah. That are good inline to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For instance; ‘’’ شریعت و طریقت(Shariat o Tareeqat) by عبدالرحمان کیلانی (Abdul Rehman Relaani)’’’, published 2006, pages 530. ‘’’ishan-e-manzil: sign-post of salvation by Abdullatif Khan Naqshbandi’’’, published 2002, pages 264. ‘’’Striving for divine union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis by Qamar-ul Huda’’’ published 2005. ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari by Russell Jesse’’’. Book by Abdul Hakim Ansari of title ‘’’ حقیقت وحدت الوجود (Haqeeqat Wahdat ul Wajood)’’’ is included on recommended books list of masters programme ‘’Religious studies’’. 203.124.30.64 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. May i ask for improving them instead of deleting? Many articles are there in wikipedia entries that need too much work. These articles were much developed. - 182.186.40.116 (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_July_3&action=edit&section=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Page ‘’’Tauheediyah ‘’’ is according to WP guidelines and policies and i say it should be restored. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but rewrite No proper arguments were presented on either side. We normally do cover all religious movements for which there is some evidence of real existence, and this seems to be one. There appears to be at least one colony of followers, based on their photo on their facebook page. We have accepted even very small movements. I cannot tell the size of this one, as I can find no information on current membership or if thee is more than the one location--but it might be in the sources, which I cannot read. That there are no third party sources does not matter--we have very frequently accepted articles on religion without them, basically on the grounds that they are good authorities for their own leadership and beliefs. The lack of English sources is irrelevant. The article is promotional, but a brief description would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No real convincing policy based arguments were made by those seeking to support to mitigate the policy based concerns brought up by those seeking deletion. If someone can write an article that is up to the inclusions standards of the project I suggest they start in draft space. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I still stand by my delete !vote. Also, DGG's "That there are no third party sources does not matter" goes straight against WP:GNG's "sources independent of the subject". Third party sources are needed to at least establish notability. Once that is done, primary sources can be considered to expand the actual content, although secondary/tertiary sources are preferable. We have this criterion to prevent things like self-promo of groups that may just as well have been made up one day. PS: the overturns are rather meaty. - HyperGaruda (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. It is well accepted in literature on ‘theory of science’ that person presenting idea should be credited accordingly. Ideological bases of Tauheediyah are quite strong and interestingly controversial but less protested. For instance, It is important aspect of muslims belief that nobody can see their God, Hell, Paradize, etc. in this life. These topics are sensitive enough to discuss in muslim community. Muhammad Hanif Khan, an unknown person (very little published about his life), initiated this idea and few other similar but hard to believe ideas. His followers such as Abdul Hakim Ansari introduced Sufism and named it Tauheediyah. Ansari became the first in the history of muslim spirituality who presented his complete spiritual syllabus in writings. Ansari wrote books on Khan’s ideas and cited his name. Admittedly, these ideas were never introduced in general public before Ansari. Onward literature also published that supported as well as criticized Khan’s ideas while citing books written by Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spirituality. Who and what is notable? Ideas? Initiator of ideas? Presenter of idea in his books? or the ideology of ideas that is tauheediyah? Followers of tauheediyah are known accepted community in general public due to their different ideas and philosophies. Followers are not unknown if not very famous.
Regarding publishing independent sources, all subjects have their specific publishing trends. Spiritual biographical literature in past was mostly published after hundreds years of persons death. We hardly see any example of independent biography of saints in Pakistan. Can anybody cite single example? This literature is mostly narrative and not acceptable on research parameters. I have also looked into other citations on many articles of muslim saints' biographies. I could not see any independent source satisfying WP:GNG ‘sources independent of the subject’. I don’t think that this WP:GNG can be applied, as it is, on biographies of muslim saints. Deletion of these type of pages is not durable solution to me. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC) [Special:Contributions/182.189.179.182|182.189.179.182]] (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to name one example of a South-Asian saint with coverage in a reliable independent source: Moinuddin Chishti, who is discussed in a biographical encyclopedia of Sufi saints. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good example. Let’s have a look on it. Moinuddin Chishti needs no introduction in muslims’ spirituality. He is a saint because he has his ‘spiritual linage’ or ‘golden chain’. It is first and the most authentic parameter of muslim saints. Uwaisi saints have exemption of it. Uwaisi saints never have spiritual linage. Second parameter is the criteria of inclusion of someone in golden chain of any spiritual order. This criteria is set only by founder of any spiritual order. Successor saints only follow these criteria. They cannot change it. If successors change it then they rename the new system. Please don’t ask me of sources of above statements. These are well established conventions and can be seen in each muslims spiritual chain.

Short reflection on literature sources on Moinuddin Chishti. Available literature on muslims’ spirituality hardly go back to eighteenth century. Most of the oldest sources are of 1850s and onward. These literatures are books that are narrations about saints. These are mostly exaggerated, superficial, and fiction-like stories. Being very optimistic, if we consider those books authentic then we should have answer to cover information gap of centuries (12th century to 18th century). There was no source of information except words of people’s mouth. Development of onward information sources (independent books and encyclopedias etc.) about the Moinuddin Chishti on the basis of these information sources is authentic and acceptable. Published and widely circulated material about saint Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spiritual chain Tauheediyah is being objected as not independent to subject. Same will be acceptable after publishing by a local vender on payment of few pennies. This situation demands redefining of notability of muslim saints. I liked this very constructive discussion very much. I respect opinion of expert editors and am convinced that in view of present policy guidelines defined in wikipedia. pages on Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari deserve deletion. Consensus for ‘’’endorse’’’ is convincing and understandable.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- decision was based primarily on a lack of reliable sources and all the WP:ILIKEIT in the world from anons won't change that. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Abdul Hakim Ansari – "Delete" closure endorsed. Established editors are unanimously of the view that deletion process was correctly applied, which is what deletion review is about. Many IP contributors who would overturn the outcome do not address issues of deletion process (e.g., was consensus correctly assessed?), but instead re-argue the merits of the article; because deletion review is not intended to be a repeat of the deletion discussions; I have to disregard these opinions. – Sandstein 06:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Abdul Hakim Ansari (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Further, Person discussed in this page is notable personality as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being founder as well as president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. Books have been written on him and his ideology. Deletion may be due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor is accountable. Created page contents have no influence of it in past. I will take care of it. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Closed based on Wikipedia policy. Good delete. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, no policy based reasons proposed to keep. As Wikipedia is a global website we are unable to accommodate special pleadings regarding regional holidays and the like. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn I think pages of Abdul Hakim Ansari and his ideology Tauheediyah should be on Wikipedia. I become familiar to them during my MPhil thesis. Famous scholars have focused on Abdul Hakim Ansari and his given ideology named Tauheediyah. That are good inline to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For instance; ‘’’ شریعت و طریقت(Shariat o Tareeqat) by عبدالرحمان کیلانی (Abdul Rehman Relaani)’’’, published 2006, pages 530. ‘’’ishan-e-manzil: sign-post of salvation by Abdullatif Khan Naqshbandi’’’, published 2002, pages 264. ‘’’Striving for divine union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis by Qamar-ul Huda’’’ published 2005. ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari by Russell Jesse’’’. Book by Abdul Hakim Ansari of title ‘’’ حقیقت وحدت الوجود (Haqeeqat Wahdat ul Wajood)’’’ is included on recommended books list of masters programme ‘’Religious studies’’. 203.124.30.64 (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. May i ask for improving them instead of deleting? Many articles are there in wikipedia entries that need too much work. These articles were much developed. - 182.186.40.116 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Again the similar deletion. Like above saying this page ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari ‘’’ has nothing wrong or contradictory to WP guidelines and policies. I am of the opinion that it should also be restored. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Redirect to movement I'm a little more cautious about biographies. We have had great difficulties judging the notability of saints in Asian religious groups, and we have by no means kept all of them. I don't really see how we can keep this as a separate article, but if we keep the article on the group, we can redirect this. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion Just as with the Tauheediyah AfD I find the policy arguments lacking with those seeking the article to be kept. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping\|HighInBC))} 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Abdul Hakim Ansari – "Delete" closure endorsed. Established editors are unanimously of the view that deletion process was correctly applied, which is what deletion review is about. Many IP contributors who would overturn the outcome do not address issues of deletion process (e.g., was consensus correctly assessed?), but instead re-argue the merits of the article; because deletion review is not intended to be a repeat of the deletion discussions; I have to disregard these opinions. – Sandstein 06:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Further, Person discussed in this page is notable personality as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution is covered under WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Person satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu language being founder as well as president or Shakh of a spiritual chain, author of notable works, and author of considerable influence in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. Books have been written on him and his ideology. Deletion may be due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor is accountable. Created page contents have no influence of it in past. I will take care of it. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closed based on Wikipedia policy. Good delete. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, no policy based reasons proposed to keep. As Wikipedia is a global website we are unable to accommodate special pleadings regarding regional holidays and the like. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. May i ask for improving them instead of deleting? Many articles are there in wikipedia entries that need too much work. These articles were much developed. - 182.186.40.116 (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Again the similar deletion. Like above saying this page ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari ‘’’ has nothing wrong or contradictory to WP guidelines and policies. I am of the opinion that it should also be restored. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to movement I'm a little more cautious about biographies. We have had great difficulties judging the notability of saints in Asian religious groups, and we have by no means kept all of them. I don't really see how we can keep this as a separate article, but if we keep the article on the group, we can redirect this. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Just as with the Tauheediyah AfD I find the policy arguments lacking with those seeking the article to be kept. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Power Rangers Ninja Steel – speedy close (again). Sigh. I had speedy-closed this once, as confirmed socks have no standing to bring things to DRV. Then, an IP editor came along and re-opened the discussion. If anybody feels my actions here are inappropriate, please start a discussion on WP:ANI. Don't just reopen this DRV. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Power Rangers Ninja Steel (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The subject of the article is confirmed by sources. However the article has a history of getting vandalised by many blocked sock editors to the point where the page gets deleted and blacklisted. is there any way this article can be restored and protected so that only longtime editors can work on it while sockpuppet can't? the power ranger articles have been plagued by this vandalism for a long time now. HomeMaker525 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) HomeMaker525 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Given that this page has been deleted ten times in the past six months, and now we're being asked to restore it by a user whose account was created six weeks ago and has a total of about forty edits, you can understand why I'm suspicious this is just another sockpuppet. Perhaps write a new article in draft space first? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I really don't care about this sockpuppetry bullshit or this buickcentry guy. we're try to get the article open so legitmate users can edit. 64.134.169.159 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I don't think "this sockpuppetry bullshit" is a helpful comment at deletion review, especially when it's being made by an IP address with no past edits (I appreciate you may be logged out by accident). KaisaL (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, or at least make a protected redirect to Power Rangers. I mean, a google search of Power Rangers Ninja Steel turns up a lot of links that confirm that's the next power ranger season. Just because someone believes the creator of the article is a sock of someone doesn't mean that nobody else should be allowed to ever write about it. 173.52.247.60 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment: could someone at least temporarly restore the article so it could be reviewed? perhaps there were edits by legitimate editors and those edits could be kept. If not then the article has to be rewritten from scratch. 47.21.207.210 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] I have taken the liberty of looking at the deleted contributions, and this is the entire textual content of the previous version: "Power Rangers Ninja Steel is an upcoming science fiction television series based on Shuriken Sentai Ninninger, a show currently airing in Japan. It will air on Nickelodeon in the United States, starting in 2017." There was also an infobox on the last version. Most other previous edits have been to redirect it to Power Rangers under WP:TOOSOON. I am leaving this comment without opinion for your reference. KaisaL (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] @KaisaL: Okay, I've created the article here. If you could move it (Talk:Ninja Steel --> Power Rangers Ninja Steel) and protect it from editing in that state for a couple of months perhaps we can end this bloody sock war once and for all? It kinda ridiculous that one blocked editor can ruin it for everyone. it also ridiculous that new users get picked on because someone think theyre a sock of someone else. i hope this works, please do it for the sake of the PR wikiproject. 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Power Rangers Ninja Steel – speedy close (again). Sigh. I had speedy-closed this once, as confirmed socks have no standing to bring things to DRV. Then, an IP editor came along and re-opened the discussion. If anybody feels my actions here are inappropriate, please start a discussion on WP:ANI. Don't just reopen this DRV. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The subject of the article is confirmed by sources. However the article has a history of getting vandalised by many blocked sock editors to the point where the page gets deleted and blacklisted. is there any way this article can be restored and protected so that only longtime editors can work on it while sockpuppet can't? the power ranger articles have been plagued by this vandalism for a long time now. HomeMaker525 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) HomeMaker525 (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this page has been deleted ten times in the past six months, and now we're being asked to restore it by a user whose account was created six weeks ago and has a total of about forty edits, you can understand why I'm suspicious this is just another sockpuppet. Perhaps write a new article in draft space first? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care about this sockpuppetry bullshit or this buickcentry guy. we're try to get the article open so legitmate users can edit. 64.134.169.159 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "this sockpuppetry bullshit" is a helpful comment at deletion review, especially when it's being made by an IP address with no past edits (I appreciate you may be logged out by accident). KaisaL (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, or at least make a protected redirect to Power Rangers. I mean, a google search of Power Rangers Ninja Steel turns up a lot of links that confirm that's the next power ranger season. Just because someone believes the creator of the article is a sock of someone doesn't mean that nobody else should be allowed to ever write about it. 173.52.247.60 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could someone at least temporarly restore the article so it could be reviewed? perhaps there were edits by legitimate editors and those edits could be kept. If not then the article has to be rewritten from scratch. 47.21.207.210 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of looking at the deleted contributions, and this is the entire textual content of the previous version: "Power Rangers Ninja Steel is an upcoming science fiction television series based on Shuriken Sentai Ninninger, a show currently airing in Japan. It will air on Nickelodeon in the United States, starting in 2017." There was also an infobox on the last version. Most other previous edits have been to redirect it to Power Rangers under WP:TOOSOON. I am leaving this comment without opinion for your reference. KaisaL (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KaisaL: Okay, I've created the article here. If you could move it (Talk:Ninja Steel --> Power Rangers Ninja Steel) and protect it from editing in that state for a couple of months perhaps we can end this bloody sock war once and for all? It kinda ridiculous that one blocked editor can ruin it for everyone. it also ridiculous that new users get picked on because someone think theyre a sock of someone else. i hope this works, please do it for the sake of the PR wikiproject. 17:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

James Dockery – Restored as a contested PROD after deletion, in future DRV isn't required for this, you can just go to WP:REFUND. – kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
James Dockery (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) If this is about the NFL player, it is notable because he played in the NFL. See WP:GRIDIRON. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn by restore. Yes, this seems to have been a successful proposed deletion, made by an IP address with very few edits. I'm unsure if it was a WP:COI nomination for PROD, but it's very bizarre, but lost out due to not being contested. The article had no career stats so, at a quick glance, he may have seemed non-notable - however he clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Very happy to support the article being restored and not sure it actually needs a full WP:DRV. (Additional comments on nomination and state of article at deletion made from access to deleted edits as administrator.) KaisaL (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

James Dockery – Restored as a contested PROD after deletion, in future DRV isn't required for this, you can just go to WP:REFUND. – kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

If this is about the NFL player, it is notable because he played in the NFL. See WP:GRIDIRON. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn by restore. Yes, this seems to have been a successful proposed deletion, made by an IP address with very few edits. I'm unsure if it was a WP:COI nomination for PROD, but it's very bizarre, but lost out due to not being contested. The article had no career stats so, at a quick glance, he may have seemed non-notable - however he clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Very happy to support the article being restored and not sure it actually needs a full WP:DRV. (Additional comments on nomination and state of article at deletion made from access to deleted edits as administrator.) KaisaL (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.