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. J04n(talk page) 10:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khawjah Wajhullah Shah (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)

unremarkable person.in my opinion not fit to be on wikipedia,let the community decide. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails notability. TheStrikeΣagle 10:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage, no sources to show notability of the subject. Ducknish (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request for suggestion on improving the content value for the article. Thanks. Hajanazemuddeen (talk · contribs)28 March 2013

Dear Hajanazemuddeen -- Khawjah Wajhullah Shah seems like a remarkable person and I would like to have met him. However, for a Wikipedia article to exist on a person there needs to be some documentary evidence that others outside his circle and independent of him have acknowledged the noteworthiness of his career. For instance, were there obituaries (non-paid) in newspapers? Can you add a quotation from " Sufi Commentaries on the Qur'an in Classical Islam" which talks about K.W.Shah himself directly. Basically, his teaching and career needs to be documented by people not directly connected to K.W.Shah. Best of luck in searching. A delete vote here does not (or should not) be taken as a lack of respect for the subject but reflects the community's apprehension about its ability to ensure that what is said about the subject is true. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Scott Cuthbert's description of delete votes as needed "to ensure that what is said about the subject is true" is an accurate description of what the policy is intended to convey. However, statements like the nominator's really undermine the good faith efforts of deletion votes to reflect verifiability, and instead suggest disrespect of the subject. So, advice to the nominator to be neutral in description of reasons to nominate. Incendiary language like "not fit to be on Wikipedia" is not actually helpful to those of us looking at the pages. "unremarkable person" is a personal comment on the subject of the article, not an encyclopedic and neutral evaluation of reliability and verifiability of sources. Turning nominations into personal attacks on subjects of articles can offend the editors who wrote or edited the article, and frankly does not help the encyclopedic project. --Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2013 (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.