Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Repeated recreation despite many discussions closing with delete.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (2nd nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.9.152 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb

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

• 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)
• 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)

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

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)

@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)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

@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)

• 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)
• Delete No evidence of notability. The argument for "keep" is a mere reflection of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Dympies (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Dympies I know mustbesources policy but you may not read the article or the sources. And here I am including Milli Gazette article, Books of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi Which are added to the article itself. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 10:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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.

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)

References

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

• 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)

  @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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

@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)

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

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)

Then it is your own issue that you are not assuming good faith. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 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. Shankargb (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep, because this article passes WP:GNG and also passes WP:NBOOK too. ≈ Farhan  «Talk» 17:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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 Bandhopaddhay Abubakar 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  ^Conversation 10:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM, blatantly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)

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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Sources were already analyzed. None of them fulfills the requirement of WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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.‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 ^{(inbox - contribs)} 08:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• But @Liz there are 68 citations / footnotes for this article! Please don't ask for a source analysis again.

I'm here grudgingly because this article is listed in Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times

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.

That's 2 hours Wikipedia owes me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay. The same citations here apply there also. Upadhyay's article has more refs and honors cited than this book.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete I came here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay, and am disappointed to see the same sort of poor arguments being made to support a keep. Clearly fails notability guidelines; A largely inconsequential book on an obscure fringe concept. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: The amount of coverages and discussions of the book in other books undoubtedly proves WP:GNG. There are 67 references in the article. ≈ MS Sakib  «TalK» 01:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Show one of those "67 references" which would satisfy WP:GNG? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  See this analysis at Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. That only looks at a fraction of the 67 references. Perhaps you can go through the remainder, one-by-one, analyzing each.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single source satisfies WP:GNG. You believe this self-published source (as stated by the website itself) "counts towards notability". In any case, your own poor analysis fail to suggest any notability. Editorkamran (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And you had only pointed just the self publishing references in spite of having a lot of independent publishing references? And I think you are a sockpuppet of Aman.kumar.goel as it impressively matches your edit history and writing style. w202.134.10.138 (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• ref no 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 28, 30, 32, 42, 44, 45, 48, (mostly 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14) use Google Translate and Google Lens. I am not having time otherwise i have the ability to show the notibility.202.134.10.138 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  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.

  Source 14: Why would انتظار موعود be a RS? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..), etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, then give other (all other) references' explanations also. Don't leave anyone. If any of 68 has been missed, it will be a crime because only one referece can also establish the notability of an article. And how can you say World Islamic Sciences and Education University as a fringe Islamic university as it is apublic govt versity of a state own by Jordanian national prince Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad???? The Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is many times cited by google scholar [1]. And how can be ref 14 not reliable when it is in Noormags and how can Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi in ref 2 can not be a from "a think-tank of any repute"? And see here many estalished publishers used "Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad" as reliable source. And as for source 12, WP:RS says: "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.". and that's what the ref 12 meets. And ref 13's author Hafiz Muhammad Naeem is in scopus.com. see here. And the writer for the ref 14 (Sayed Mohammad Rouhani) is in google scholar. see here. 103.67.157.157 (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. J. Ansari Talk 17:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)