Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujtaba Akhir Zamani

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 speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. -- KTC (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Akhir Zamani[edit]

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

Per WP:N - an entirely Urdu-language book with no English reviews and of no likely interest to English readers. kashmiri ^TALK 10:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;Invalid Reason to Delete this Article This is not a valid reason to delete a article,that the Article is about a book which is written in Urdu language. Second thing this that this book also have a English-language review with the name of "The Spiritual Guides of Sarwari Qadiri Order" published by Sultan ul Faqr Publications registered, many other article in Wikipedia written on books which are in urdu or in other languages, few example are:

Fazail-e-Amaal(originally whole book is in Urdu)

Bang-i-Dara(originally whole book is in Urdu )

Rumuz-i-Bekhudi(originally whole book is in Persian)

Payam-i-Mashriq(originally whole book is in Persian)

A have carefully read the whole article, this article has proper reliable published sources which are verifiable and proper book and website citations are given in article, a single user due to a Bias has not a right to decide the interest of all rest Wikipedian Readers

other thing that i have notice is that User:Kashmiri just attacking on all work done by User:Neyn due to some personal, religious or geographic Bias, or doing act of Vandalism Mrashid364 (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

The book is in Urdu-language as deliberately specified in the article. Various articles exist on Wikipedia based not only on Urdu books but books belonging to other languages as well. This is because Wikipedia holds encyclopedic content without any discrimination of language for anyone. This is part of the reason why Wikipedia.org is available in various languages as well check the left bottom bar on the main wiki page. Carefully read the article to find sources. Hence, there is no reason for the deletion of this article. Ayesha Nb (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, The books might well find their place on Urdu Wikipedia, however English Wikipedia contains only articles of relevance to English speakers. kashmiri ^TALK 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Kashmiri is trying to limit the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia by placing false allegations. This is a very discriminatory act which limits "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" due to personal differences. Please take note that Wikipedia is not for the interest of one user. All kinds of books articles exist and many users contribute to one article. If Wikipedia has an already existing accepted article and only ONE specific user is having issues it just goes to show it is his own issue-psychological or sensitivity or unreasonable blaming. Also, it is very disappointing to see that users such as User:Kashmiri are making religious books an excuse for fun and play. This can cause for a religious offense for many Muslims and followers of Islamic Sufism. JugniSQ (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Come, then, and behead me for XfD. By the way, I sense an SPI... kashmiri ^TALK 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There is next to nothing that would indicate any sort of notability for the book; it simply fails WP:GNG. In addition to that, three of the editors pushing for the article to be kept here only seem to edit articles where the fourth editor is having some trouble, and the creator of the article is a fifth also created around the same time and only editing the same exact articles. The fact that three of them were all created within two days of each other and only seem to support each other in discussions ought to be taken into account by the closer of all the various AfDs involved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so acknowledged with the secrets of the unknown, good for you! However, Wikipedia itself is the best judge regarding these issues. Even if the editors you have pointed out, are somehow connected to each other, that does not justify the fact that you are so bent upon deleting this article. Punjabsind82 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

~~:: WARNING~~

The books are quite notable and you can brush up your intelligence by checking out the references listed within and below the article. They are not even limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. The content has been there with proper references with books and websites on spiritualism as a whole and without any limitation to one source. So, at least be truthful about your claims as they are all false. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. As an editor stay focused on the article and contribute if it is your area of specialization. By accusing other editors you are proving nothing at all. I will only talk about myself and I will of course edit these articles after all this is my area of specialization. Quite honestly, only those editors connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles. Clearly User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo do not belong to the field of mysticism, caste and school of thought but are trying to step into this as an arena of TEASING other users who contribute to authentic and rightful Wikipedia encyclopedic content. The role of editors is to contribute to articles and not to LIMIT content or HARASS other users. The LACK of knowledge regarding SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and Tasawwuf pours out of the comments given by both the usernames i.e. User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo. Both the users have no specialization in the field of Spiritualism.

Also, User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records show that you do not work to make the article better or work with editors to make article better by having a discussion on the talk page. All you know is placing objections and to revert other people’s contributions and efforts for your own interest. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. What you do is not discussion. It is an edit war.

Unfortunately, none of the arguments you come up with are substantial and cannot be justified. So, here is some advice, let Wikipedia be the judge and stop acting like you can control or violate Wikipedia as per your own interest.

~~Neyn (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (and I've added a G11 tag); this is a product spam for a 2013 book. (See also.) Pax 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.