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. "Keep" voters do not provide a sufficient rationale, particularly when it comes to providing reliable secondary sources. Given the history of the article, SALTing seems appropriate to me.
Drmies (
talk)
12:35, 10 August 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
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
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?
@
Aman.kumar.goelZiaur 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
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, LizRead!Talk!03:55, 31 July 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
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.
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
Keep, there is a lot of established reliable source here including
Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi, former Pakistani High comissioner,
Zakir Naik,
Ali Gomaa,
Ali Unal,
Ziaur Rahman Azmi,
Asitkumar BandhopaddhayAbubakar Muhammad Zakaria etc. and most of the sources discuss the matter in detail, including the published journal articles given in the article from Middle East, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia from their renowned national leading universities, also there are references from lots of established news articles and international books, so it clearly passes
WP:RS,
WP:NB and GNG. But in all the article, there should be also added hindu point of views more to make the article more balanced, because the book and the topic is also very familiar in Hindu communities when it comes to the hindu muslim dialogue, and most of the Hindus gives different explanations of these discussions, their referencial point of views should be also added. —
Masum Ibn Musa Conversation10:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still hoping for a source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
where have you given or discussed the detailed analysis of the sources pointing them specifically? Show. The article meets
WP:SIGCOV of
WP:GNG, and besides when SNG is met, GNG is not needed, and according to
WP:SNG of
WP:NB, and to the first 66 of the given 67 sources in reference, the article meets the criteria 1, as this book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.", criteria 3, as this book "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.", criteria 4, as the book "is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.".
43.245.120.228 (
talk)
10:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: I forgot to mention above. This book was translated into English as Muhammad in the Hindu Scriptures. Some sources may have English translation names other than the name of the article. For example, thesis of two PhD fellows of
Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, published in International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences.[1]~
𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒(
inbox -
contribs)08:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
But @
Lizthere are 68 citations / footnotes for this article! Please don't ask for a source analysis again.
I machine translated and analyzed a few of the refs and did some searches of my own. In the interest of not making others eyes bleed with a wall of text, I will not post them here. See
Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
Assessment: this book is notable but it's been superseded by a later book Ved Prakash Upadhyay wrote. Upadhyay's books, as I understand them, attempt to find some common theological overlap between Hinduism and Islam. This work is polarizing partly because adherents of both faiths seem to see this as a long stretch. It's also polarizing because South Asia is violently polarized anyway; Upadhyay wants to calm this. Someone in a previous AfD called these views "fringe" and I can see why; I'm not saying they are but I can see how most South Asians might see them this way. That doesn't mean they're wrong; it's a matter of faith. Nevertheless, I think they are notable if you sift through enough stuff; see the talk page.
Merge with
Ved Prakash Upadhyay. Notwithstanding the technical notability of this book, I recommend merging its article to the author's article. This is because the refs I read tended to lump this in with the later book and Upadhyay in general. Do we want an article on this book and the later book and the author repeating the same arguments? It just seems to make the most sense to put all this together in one good, comprehensive article. It's less susceptible to POV forking, too.
Delete Fails GNG. I will make this easy — those who wish to keep this article, please provide the best seven(Ceiling[68/10])sources and I will offer an explanation about why they don't contribute to GNG.
TrangaBellam (
talk)
14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I asked for seven; so, my analysis will be restricted to Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14 as present
this version which stood at the time of your comment:
Source 1: "Human Resource Management Academic Research Society" is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and more importantly, was in Beall's list before it was shut down. When anybody tries to cite the journal, we
issue an alert about the poor quality of the source but that has not discouraged you or whoever added it.
Source 2: A publication by Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad. There is not the slightest of indication that this is a think-tank of any repute.
Source 3: The Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and is published by a
fringe Islamic universty.
Source 4: PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology was hijacked. C. 2018, it was
transferred to Open Access Text Ltd., a known predatory publisher — again on Beall's list and our black-list — and subsequently
removed from Scopus at the end of 2019. Need I say more?
Source 12: You claim that undergraduate theses are reliable? Or do you think that I am stupid enough to be misled because I cannot read Indonesian?
Source 13: Why would Al-Idrak, published by an eponymous research center in lahore, be considered as a rleiable source? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and has never been cited by any scholar in the Academe.
@
Aman.kumar.goel, please do not strike comments from editors you disagree on the basis of your own unproven "sock" allegation. Get a checker confirmation first.
This AfD is getting out of hand on both sides of the issue. @
Liz
^IJ-ARBASS 2017, Vol. 7, Special Issue – Islam and Contemporary Issues)
ISSN2222-6990
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.