This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies 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.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article 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
No, that won't do. Looking at either article, that is a passable analysis of a few core works. It isn't an indiscriminate mere list of all pubs by them; which is what this page is. You get one more go before I PROD this... William M. Connolley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, i dont really care what happens to this article. But you should probably send a message to Peaceworld111 who created most of the content Pass a Methodtalk15:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for informing me. However I believe this article (at least its heading) to be notable enough to deserve its own article. I see you have been asking 'why does this deserve its own article?' Rather than having me explain its notability per notability guidelines, i think it would be better for us to narrow down the discussion, and discuss on the aspects why you believe this article to be not notable. If the issue is that this article mainly just lists books written by the author, then there is nothing to worry as I will be working on that but I'll need some time. Thank you. --Peaceworld12:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said that I see no reason for this to have its own article. If you aren't prepared to put forward any reasons why it should, then I'll AFD it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was only trying to ask you to give a reason as to why it is not notable rather than just state that you see no reason for its notability to help proceed with the discussion. Maybe I probably misunderstood you before, you stated that the content should be merged with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad article. So now I see that you have no issue with the notability of this article's content. ok, So I believe it should deserve its own article because there is enough reliable coverage of his set of writings that are commonly known as Ruhani Khazain (Spiritual Treasures) especially in the Urdu language though this page has been given the heading Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography. If that's what your implying, i.e. why should a notable person deserves own page of writings, I think then that is a satisfactory answer. I understand making cross-references as to why other articles with similar stance deserve to be on their own is not a valid reason for this article to stay, but, to be honest I mean other articels such as the ones mentioned by PassMethod are identified with their unique article simply because they are collectively known as something, and hence has some notability to their collectiveness. --Peaceworld14:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ peaceworld, you said "So now I see that you have no issue with the notability", you should not accuse him of not knowing anything about notability, given that he was a former ADMIN (if i remember?)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the miscommunication on my part, I was not accusing William, by that statement I meant that I have now understood that according to William this article's content is notable enough. I was trying to clear my own misunderstanding rather than accuse William. Sorry for creating ambiguity in my responses.--Peaceworld22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
