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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ejuddin (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)

Unnotable person Summichum (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to me that if the claim is correct, then the person is pretty much inherently notable, given the importance of the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Summichum, I hope you're not on a mission to get rid of all of a certain editor's contributions. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -For a person to be notable, it is required that multiple secondary, independent and reliable must exist not that they are available/accessible right about now. Given that WP:INDAFD states, most of the Indian Newspaper archives do not store content for before 2000[..] and even now around this time, many urdu newspapers publishes their material online in form of images making it inaccessible with Google or any other search engine, it's very tough to find related sources. Subject lived in the 16th century. It is remarkable that he headed a notable religious Dawoodi Bohra community of millions of people spread world-wide for almost four years, thus it is very unlikely that he was not independently written about in multiple reliable sources. He definitely is notable, one however requires to find those sources and establish notability in his article. I've found one primary source that at least confirms the existence of the subject ([1]). Deleting this one would be a WP:Systematic bias, I think. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I could not find any secondary sources for this article , even the primary sources seldom mention him. Back in 16 century this schiisnm was itself not notable hence I don't think any sources would be available. Summichum (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Weird suggestion. Hafspajen (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : No secondary sources availaible , hence notablility can't be proven, many Dais of Dawoodi bohra dont have a page , so what makes this more special to have a dedicated page? Summichum (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - observe, nominator does not vote. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG for being one 23rd Da'i al-Mutlaq. There is a book, The Bohras,[2] having more details about him. Ejuddin is not the only spelling, sometimes his last name is also written as Izzuddin.[3]-[4]-[5] Bladesmulti (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* How can being a 23rd dai make one notable considering the fact , that this post of dai is only notable now and not back then AFAIU. Also these sources have a passing mention of him which further substantiate that the person was not notable even back then.Summichum (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* It looks like the word "passing mention" is thrown out like a trash now. 3/4 of these citations contains his biography. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice, please update this article with those references and removing any extraneous information, Also the last one is a self published source.Summichum (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a primary source, not self published. You really believe that an article must include any citations for proving its notability? Or you have to check before you nominate for deletion. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* ok I remove my nomination , thanks for the research.Summichum (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2014 (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.