Deletion of Shams-ul-haq Azeemabadi

Comment: I have done that, thank you but I would refer you again to . In which it is clearly stated. ''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability.'' and ''Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies.'' This article as currently written fails that miserably. Without any sources it is simply |original research which again does not belong on Wikipedia. If someone can provide some sources to back the claims made in the article I would be more than happy to review my position
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: There are '''ZERO''' reliable sources listed here for the subject so it fails  straight away
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: If I could verify it I would have". Sigh. Since DrunkenSmurf recognises that he's being a bit unpleasant, I will try not to knock him too hard for it. However, I do wish people in deletion debates would sometimes recognise that  exists.In particular, when an article states that person X is notable for having written book Y, the simple thing to do to establish  is to check that Y exists and is notable. In this case, the http://www.google.com/search?hs=n&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22%E2%80%98AWN-AL-MA%E2%80%98BUD%22&btnG=Search search for an idiosyncratic spelling of the second book mentioned in the article returns 475 English ghits. I would at least quadruple that, given that the rendition of Arabic into Latin characters is non-standard across the Middle East and South Asia. I further wonder how many ghits exist for this same book - one of three referenced in the article - in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and Hindi. Further, a cursory glance at some of the ghits would reveal to the uninformed, which DrunkenSmurf is in this case, that the article subjects' name can be spelled several different ways in English as well - "Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-'Adhim Abadi" for one among dozens of permutations.The moral? Its a good idea for everyone to recognise the limits of their specific knowledge and comparative ability to research certain subjects before thundering into deletion debates; would make the rest of us a lot happier
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:V)