Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings

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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings[edit]

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

Per WP:N - unremarkable translation of an Urdu-language book with not a single English-language review kashmiri ^TALK 11:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;Invalid Reason for Deletion This book Article is a English translation done by a group of Three individuals from its urdu text book named Shams ul fuqara, Article language is clearly neutral point of view without bias, and proper book and web citations are given, so deletion tag is a wrong act with this Article. Unremarkable translation of an Urdu-language book is not a valid reason, i also read some parts of this book, translation from urdu to English according to international English stander

the second thing i 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) 09:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

The article cannot be qualified for "unremarkable" for the readers of Islam, Sufism, saints, punjabi saints, Islamic sufism, mysticism and the like. Also, for basic readers especially of biographies, this article holds meaning. This is against Wikipedia policy to wrongfully point a particular book article as "unremarkable" due to personal bias or just because the book does interest one particular person. Ayesha Nb (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

I love how User:Neyn, User:Nainntara, User:Mrashid364 and User:Ayesha Nb always edit the same type of articles, write in one style and one after another. Now, the fact that a book has been translated by three individuals does not bring it any additional WP:NOTABILITY. In my view, the book is non-notable as understood by WP:NBOOK. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different user make there contribution to improve an article it is your original reason instead of WP:NBOOK, certainly you do this due to some Bias 39.34.111.102 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Kashmiri is trying to limit the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia by placing false allegations on the articles related to Sultan Bahu. This is a very discriminatory act. Please take note that Wikipedia is not for the interest of one user. All kinds of 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. JugniSQ (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings is the best book on the life history and teachings of famous sufi saint sultan bahoo. User:kashmiri has used Wikipedia against casts;spiritual school of thoughts and religious school of thoughts.Some examples are given ,( 1) Gujjar( 2) Risala Roohi Shareef which is a golden book of sultan bahoo (3) Sarwari Qadiri Order (4)sultan bahu (5) Sultan Bahoo: The Life and Teachings which is an English book on sultan bahoo's life and teachings)(6) Shams-ul-Fuqara which is an Urdu book on the life and teachings of sultan bahoo (7) Mujtaba Akhir Zamani which about the life history of the spiritual guides of sarwari qadri order) User:kashmiri frequently amended all articles without any knowledge of relevant school of thought.He is not a specialist of all fields of knowledge on the other hand he is authorized to amend the article field of medicine,banking,telecommunication,asian culture and politics. Now he entered sensitive cast and spiritual area and he used Wikipedia successfully without permission and authority of work in the field

~~More examples are also available before you. Please collect them. I submit my opinion only, this matter is decided by Wikipedia on merits. Punjabsind82 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

Delete Similar to a whole bunch of other non-notable book articles now being defended by accounts created within days of each other, this book doesn't even seem to pass WP:GNG. The citations are all websites tied to this religious revival movement or commercial sites selling these books. In addition to failing to meet notability criteria, the article is a major fail of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The end result is that the article itself seems like an attempt to generate publicity for the purpose of commercial gain; there don't seem to be enough mentions of this book anywhere to deem it notable in its own right. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:MezzoMezzo vandalized 14 Time and co partner or other version of User:Kashmiri 202.166.163.146 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: WARNING~~

@MezzoMezzo You are confused. First, this book is available all over the internet through FREE DOWNLOAD and without any cost. Hence, you cannot possibly name this a commercial promotion. It is not even a religious movement but is in fact a Spiritual movement. Spiritual Beliefs are not only respected by all religions, they are also accepted by them. As for the references, they are not 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.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. You make it an EDIT WAR.

User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records clearly show that mysticism, caste and school of thought is NOT your area of specialization but is merely 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. Only those connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles.

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) 09:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)~~ (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information).[reply]

Delete Self-published book Shii (tock) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Shii This is not a self-published book for God’s sake check out Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd. under which the book has been registered. The page clarifies that “Sultan-ul-Faqr Group of Publications was registered under the Intellectual Property Organisation Pakistan. It was registered by the number 278040 under the Trade Marks Ordinance, Section 33(4).” You can also do some research on your own if all of a sudden,you happen to be so interested in this article.

~~Neyn (talk) 17:35, 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 (negotiate) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a mess of a content fork. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 7 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.