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 without prejudice against rewriting. The discussion below showed that the subject probably has sufficient notability but the current state of the article is not fit for purpose. Please contact me (or any other admin) if you want the page history restored for redrafting. Deryck C. 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Maqsusi (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)

I assume a lot of people feed the needy, but I don't think it's a criteria for inclusion. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep absent any valid reason for deletion. The article's references appear to establish a reasonable case that the subject satisfies the GNG, and the nominator makes no argument otherwise. It's not necessary to meet an SNG if the subject meets the GNG. This is not the way to treat a good faith effort by an inexperienced editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)i[reply]

My reason for deletion is in nomination itself. As I wrote, I don't think hat establishing a kitchen for needy and feeding them using person's only small income as article says is the reason for encyclopedic article. It's definitely a good act, but we are not creating a story of good people here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" reliable sources is three, and we seem to have that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not convinced these are 3 distinct sources. They seem like one article run three places with a few changes. They seem to tend to be from the local press as well. The process of creating this article seems to tend towards presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. The subject does appear to be notable, but the current article contains nothing worth saving; it should be taken down until it's more comprehensible and less of a peacock-fest. Draftifying would also be a good option, if there's any realistic prospect of someone rewriting a decent article from those sources. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Yes, there is a little bit of one source lifting from another, but there are also two articles from the same (presumably reliable) mainstream news source. And this is not a case of a single event, really; it is his work which is receiving attention, so keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as entirely promotional (G11). No prejudice to a competent, neutral recreation that can then be examined again for notability.  Sandstein  09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DEL4 and WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 22 December 2015 (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.