Talk:Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad

Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 10, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by Padavalamkuttanpilla (talk · contribs) on 6 January 2020.

India

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

Islam

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles

Requested move 20 September 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per lack of objection (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad → Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad – I think the Grand Muftiship is the better title than Muftiship. Because Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is now Grand Mufti of India. Kutyava (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of referenced edit[edit]

I have edited this page according to citation from a doctorate thesis. Available citations are mostly from recent news. But my edit removed by @Kutyava:. Same user issued on me the charge of vandalism and disruptive editing. The removal has been reverted. Irshadpp (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Irshadpp: Stop vandalism against Grand Mufti of India and related articles. The Grand Mufti of India was established during the Mughal era not by the Barelvi movement. The Barelvi movement was established by Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi. He was only born in 1800s. It had explained in Grand Mufti of India article with source. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 06:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a referenced edit will be considered as vandalism.--Irshadpp (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sure. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 19:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Muftiship of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 07:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article shares a number of the same issues as Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar; as such, the failed nomination for that article is a useful point of reference here.

In particular, this article is "is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria," and thus fails the first of the four criteria for immediate failures. Of the good article criteria, the clearest issues are with verifiability and breadth, but there are also concerns about neutrality.

First, significant parts of the article are unsourced. By way of example, the following sentences have zero citations between them:

March 13 – Communist Party of India (Marxist) General Secretary, Sitaram Yechury met the Grand Mufti.
April 12 – Attended as chief guest of Rahmatun-Lil-Alameen Conference organised by Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Ashrafia.
12 May – Received a Mega reception in Kuwait.
24 May – Grand Mufti met with Ruler of Ras Al-Khaima.
26 May – Arrived to Malaysia for his second visit.
26 May – Received a reception in Bangalore.

More pressingly, the article is significantly lacking in breadth. In the last six months, a grand total of five events are listed. Even when events are listed, they say exceedingly little; "Issued official statement on Ayodhya dispute", for example, isn't useful without saying what the actual statement was. Nearly every entry here needs expansion: He received a "mega reception in Kuwait," but why was he in Kuwait in the first place? He arrived to Malaysia for his second visit—why, to go shopping or to go to a conference? He met with the ruler of Ras Al-Khaima; what did they discuss? There are ways to do a timeline of an important position, as articles on the Trump and Obama presidencies show. The main flaw here is simply that very few events are included.

As in the article on Musliyar, there are concerns about neutrality. He receives a "grand reception" here, a "mega reception" there, and is the "chief guest" on numerous occasions. But an article needs to say more than that someone is a cherished guest on the cocktail-party circuit; and this predominantly focuses on claiming how Musliyar is treated and perceived by others, rather than on what he did. These issues can be alleviated by expanding the breadth of the article, as noted above. But the amount of work required to do so means that this article is not yet close to good-article status. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the timeline section[edit]

The Timeline section resembles a desk diary. Wikipedia policy (WP:DIARY) is against this kind of thing. Is there any reason not to delete the Timeline section? Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better to remove, all receptions operated by organisations connected to subject. No value for that, even it is reported in routine news papers.--Irshadpp (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]