Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:02, 5 August 2023

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeated recreation despite many discussions closing with delete.

The subject still fails WP:NBOOK. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is significant in the debate of Indian religions that, The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to ... political or religious movement, fulfills the condition. Prominent Indian evangelist Zakir Naik has been criticized for saying things that match the book's content. Furthermore Ziaur Rahman Azmi also responded to the content of this book and referred to the book. The book has been widely accepted and criticized among Muslim, Hindu and atheist debaters in Indian subcontinent.‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 13:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources? There are none. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: I am not happy to see that you proposed for deletion without reading the article. Sources are added to the article itself. You can watch this video for Zakir Naik's topic. Although many have criticized him, but you can see this blog of Asif Mohiuddin, if you know Bengali language. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I heard about this book in real life during some Vedas Vs Quran debate. That said, this book's local popularity won't decide the notability. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources and this book lacks it. CharlesWain (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain Why and how? All those who have researched Islam versus Hinduism in the past and present centuries have referred to the book or its contents. Do you think the whole thing fails GNG? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 05:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the subject fails WP:GNG because it is lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a number of subjects (such as YouTube channels) that have gained popularity in local spheres but they haven't recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CharlesWain (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesWain I don't understand which GNG you read. If a book creates a new argument that is fundamentally used in a religious debate on that topic for the next 50+ years; How is that book not notable?

And the references here include Milli Gadget articles, books by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi and two other professors. I don't understand, are you considering these as YouTube channels or have you not seen the references at all? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well Said Kapudan Pasha. Actually Some professor like as (Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria, Ziya-ur-Rahman Azmi) widely discuss about this book in their discussion. The discussion of the book is described in many sources. -- Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 11:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The argument for "keep" is a mere reflection of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Dympies (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies I know mustbesources policy but you may not read the article or the sources. And here I am including Milli Gazette article,^[1] Books of Ziaur Rahman Azmi^[2] and Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi^[3] Which are added to the article itself. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are only making a passing mention or they are discussing a broader subject. Read WP:GNG properly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel Ziaur Rahman Azmi wrote the book about the similarities and differences between the religions of India (Hind). There he criticized the book for 5 pages. is this just a passing mantion? Another thing I found about this book today is that, this book was translated in bengali by the former Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi president Asitkumar Bandyopadhyay.^[4]

Another complementary point to the book's notabilty is its misinterpreted (alleged by many Hindu pandit and I read a book by ISKCON Bangladesh about this) in Hindu scriptures. Doesn't that prove the notability? (Off topic: Dada, please mention me while answering. I'm actually not very active on English Wikipedia.) ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures". Milli Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-01-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
^ الرحمن, أعظمى، محمد ضياء (2008). دراسات في اليهودية والمسيحية وأديان الهند والبشارات في كتب الهندوس (in Arabic). مكتبة الرشد،. pp. 703–708.
^ Malik, Dr Ahmad; Mehdi Hashmi Qureshi, Afrasiab (1 January 2022). END TIMES (What could happen in the world tomorrow). (Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad). pp. 13, 274, 275. ISBN 9789699837142. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
^ Basu, Anjali (Jan 2019). Samsad Bangali Charitabidhan (in Bengali) (Second ed.). Kolkata: Sahitya Samsad. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-81-7955-292-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Dympies (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per nom. There is no coverage from reliable sources. Also consider nominating Ved Prakash Upaddhay (the author of this book) which was created just 1 week ago by an IP sock. Editorkamran (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran Whether the book's author's article is produced by IP for a week is none of our business. Let us discuss this article. How do you say the article doesn't have RS? Do you know what RS is? ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 02:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be very helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously this article passes WP:GNG according to above reference. মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to prove WP:BK ; delete per according to the nomination. Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 12:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I would like to ask a question out of respect for those who are asking for deletion: When a book appears as the main subject of two notable religious debates, notable religious figures review and criticize or in some cases praise the book in their respective books or in the media; So why is the book not notable? Because the reviewer's book is in Arabic, Sanskrit or some such language? or anything else? Although I don't normally participate in AFD. But a few days ago, besides participating in the AFD of Ulipur.com, I also participated in this AFD. So maybe, I'm not understanding the point correctly. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 06:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article itself says it's passed WP:GNG as well as passed WP:NBOOK too.→ Tanbiruzzaman 💬 12:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the source that confirms it is passing WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel, please don't forget the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.: There is no such requirement. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right -- it is not technically a requirement but it is recommended and requested by the AfD procedure. It's unusual that a nominator doesn't do this. It's highly unusual when they refuse to do it. This leaves others wondering what's up with the nominator.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is your own issue that you are not assuming good faith. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book appearing in debate isn't enough. I note that not a single source has been provided which would satisfy WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because this article passes WP:GNG and also passes WP:NBOOK too. ≈ Farhan «Talk» 17:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources have been offered but their reliability remains completely unestablished; the conclusion of the previous deletion debates still holds. Given the current text of the article, WP:TNT would apply even if notability were established, which it isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures". Milli Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-01-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.

[2] الرحمن, أعظمى، محمد ضياء (2008). دراسات في اليهودية والمسيحية وأديان الهند والبشارات في كتب الهندوس (in Arabic). مكتبة الرشد،. pp. 703–708.

[3] Malik, Dr Ahmad; Mehdi Hashmi Qureshi, Afrasiab (1 January 2022). END TIMES (What could happen in the world tomorrow). (Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad). pp. 13, 274, 275. ISBN 9789699837142. Retrieved 1 September 2022.

[Basu-4] Basu, Anjali (Jan 2019). Samsad Bangali Charitabidhan (in Bengali) (Second ed.). Kolkata: Sahitya Samsad. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-81-7955-292-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 :::You're right -- it is not technically a requirement but it ''is'' recommended and requested by the AfD procedure. It's ''unusual'' that a nominator doesn't do this. It's ''highly unusual'' when they refuse to do it. This leaves others wondering what's up with the nominator.
 :::--<span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span> 00:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
+::::Then it is your own issue that you are not assuming [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 02:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' A book appearing in debate isn't enough. I note that not a single source has been provided which would satisfy [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Shankargb|Shankargb]] ([[User talk:Shankargb|talk]]) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)