This article clearly meets at least one, and possibly up to three, of the criteria for immediate failure; as detailed below, I am going to fail the nomination on that basis.
The first criterion for immediate failure is if an article "is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria." These criteria are that an article is well written; verifiable; broad in its coverage; neutral; stable; and illustrated.
Although a number of these apply here, the most striking is the lack of breadth of the coverage. The article's subject was born in 1931, and is currently 89 years old. Yet the article picks up with his life as of 2018; the first 87 years of his life are completely omitted other than a few passing references to earlier years in the list of awards. It's as if an article on Donald Trump began in January 2017, and said absolutely nothing else about the rest of his life. Even to the extent the subject's role as Grand Mufti of India is discussed, it's extremely flimsy coverage. His inauguration is mentioned, as are the receptions that followed. But then the article merely says, in broad strokes that he is a "peace and interfaith dialogue promoter" and gives a few of his views on a few different subjects. After reading the article, I still have almost no idea who Musliyar actually is, and what he has done. Given that the article has been heavily edited since being nominated, it's worth noting that the as-nominated version was no better.
Another good-article criterion, neutrality, is in serious doubt. To the extent the article has a cohesive voice, it seems to be saying that Musliyar is an impressive and respected person. The article is quick to say things like "Minister T. P. Ramakrishnan expressed appreciations to the Grand Mufti for the Government of Kerala" and "He has consecutively been ranked for many years as an influential Muslim from India"; these may well be true, but there is not even a hint of any controversy surrounding him, despite its clear existence. An article is not neutral if it focuses solely on good press and ignores negative attention.
There are also serious concerns about stability. The article has nearly 200 edits since it was nominated; these are predominantly back-and-forth edits by editors with different views, not edits that help improve an already good article. Indeed, as recently as yesterday concerns about the article were being raised on its talk page.
Finally, the article is needs significant editing for readability. This wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker by itself, but typos and broken English go beyond interrupting flow, and make it difficult to understand what the article is trying to say in places. Before a future nomination, this article should probably be brought to the guild of copy editors.
The third criterion for immediate failure is if the article "has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid."
As of last month, the article has a cleanup banner alleging that an editor has a close connection with the subject. Granted, the banner was not on the article at the time of nomination, but the underlying issues are clearly present. I'm not sure what led SnehaRaphael1996 to specifically allege a close connection, but as discussed above, the attendant concerns about neutrality and bias are clearly evident.
The final criterion for immediate failure is if the article "is not stable due to edit warring on the page."
As discussed above, the article is currently unstable. By way of further example, on 27 March a user removed a significant amount of content, writing that "Removed all unreferenced entries, suspected promotional content, unknown parameters from infobox:person; mostly contributed a suspected user Authordom. Unexplained reverts of this edit by the same user will be reported. Add trusted sources before reverting each entries." This content was added back two hours later. Another two hours, and a third user removed more material, with edit comment "UN-REFERENCED CONTENT REMOVED". A week later this and other edits were undone, with the comment "Pure vandalism by irshadpp after he was get extended confirmed editorship". One might be more lenient with stability if faced with an unquestionably good article that had some unfortunate and unfounded disputes between editors. Here, however, the lack of stability is a reflection of the significant problems with the article.
Authordom, I'm sorry to have to fail this nomination. If you're still interested in bringing this article to good-article status, hopefully the above comments provide some guidance. In short, before renominating I would significantly expand the breadth of the article; ensure that the subject is treated in a balanced manner; and ask the guild of copy editors to take a look. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]