- 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Majid Ali Jaunpuri
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Majid Ali Jaunpuri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article's subject fails WP:GNG , WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and lacks independent sources ,all the references mere mention the subject none of them are indepth.Contested Prod by article creator. Mumbaigold ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Significant coverage in the "History of Dārul Uloom Deoband", a reliable book by Syed Mehboob Rizwi, and Asir Adrawi's Karwān-e-Rafta, and in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband. Teacher of notable scholars and considered to be notable in his field by scholars. This AfD nomination has not considered doing a WP:BEFORE ─ The Aafī ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can you share more details about the book, e.g. publisher and ISBN? (Current citation says publisher is Darul Uloom Deoband, which would fail
WP:IS) Coverage in monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband can not be considered for notability as the
WP:SIGCOV needs to be in
WP:RS AND
WP:IS. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, Dear friend, I've added another reference and did a bit cleanup. I added a bit more information from that source, and that's a known work in not just Indian masses, but outside as well, commonly known as Nuzhat al-Khawātir. I would consider this significant, and independent as well, besides being reliable. Asīr Adrawi's book adds more to this, and rest remains the issue of
Syed Mehboob Rizwi's book. Islamic books in India and Pakistan are published by a number of book publishers, mostly without ISBN, and if you search so, you won't get any, some exceptional cases, and time being Muslim bookstores and publishers have developed, so now a part of books come with ISBN.
Syed Mehboob Rizwi, the author of Tārikh Dārul Uloom Deoband, adds a bit more (in providing information), if we do not consider it something like IS, but is still is not as much "primary". 44 years later from the subjects death, a detailed article appears in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband, I wouldn't regard it as "non-independent" source, though there is just a little connection, i.e
Jaunpuri graduated from this seminary.
. He had no other association with this seminary. Anyways, all the sources added altogether, let the subject pass notability, and I guess there would be more, but it will take time to find out. Also, there is something we call Systemic bias. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)- The Aafī Thanks for your work. In order to save the article, it would be helpful to add the other WP:RS/ WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV you can find. With respect to the essay Systemic bias, there's no denying that it exists and some WP policies may be caught in its trap, but that's not something we can address at this point, in this discussion. There may be a systematic bias in media coverage (or lack thereof) of local homosexual heroes in Pakistani or Ugandan press. Unfortunately, unless there is such coverage, those people will not get a WP article. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, Dear friend, I've added another reference and did a bit cleanup. I added a bit more information from that source, and that's a known work in not just Indian masses, but outside as well, commonly known as Nuzhat al-Khawātir. I would consider this significant, and independent as well, besides being reliable. Asīr Adrawi's book adds more to this, and rest remains the issue of
Syed Mehboob Rizwi's book. Islamic books in India and Pakistan are published by a number of book publishers, mostly without ISBN, and if you search so, you won't get any, some exceptional cases, and time being Muslim bookstores and publishers have developed, so now a part of books come with ISBN.
Syed Mehboob Rizwi, the author of Tārikh Dārul Uloom Deoband, adds a bit more (in providing information), if we do not consider it something like IS, but is still is not as much "primary". 44 years later from the subjects death, a detailed article appears in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband, I wouldn't regard it as "non-independent" source, though there is just a little connection, i.e
- Keep: There are sources, such as Al-Ilām bi man fī Tārīkh al-Hind min al-Ālām al-musamma bi Nuzhat al-Khawātir wa Bahjat al-Masāmi wa an-Nawāzir (in Arabic), authored by Abdul Hai Hasani ( father of Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi) and published by Dar Ibn Hazm, that discuss Majid Ali Jaunpuri. This is a common situation of notable individuals in South Asia and the Middle East, who are mentioned in texts in local languages, rather than in English. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Anupam The book you've referred makes only a passing mention of the subject, which doesn't rise to the level of
WP:SIGCOV. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Meliora, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the literature that mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri is primarily non-English. A source that I recently discovered includes
Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar, authored by Yusuf Marashli and published by Dar el-Marefah also mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri on pages 996 and 997. I would imagine that a plethora of literature (in print) that discusses the scholar would be found in the library of the
Darul Uloom Deoband, though accessing it would be difficult unless one goes there in person. I hope this helps. With regards,
Anupam
Talk
15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- To answer your question with regard to WP:SIGCOV, the first book I mentioned dedicated an entire page to the subject. I personally wouldn't consider this a passing mention. Kind regards, Anupam Talk 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Meliora, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the literature that mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri is primarily non-English. A source that I recently discovered includes
Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar, authored by Yusuf Marashli and published by Dar el-Marefah also mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri on pages 996 and 997. I would imagine that a plethora of literature (in print) that discusses the scholar would be found in the library of the
Darul Uloom Deoband, though accessing it would be difficult unless one goes there in person. I hope this helps. With regards,
Anupam
Talk
15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Tried but had difficulty finding newspaper and print coverage for someone that died in 1935. There are already enough book references at the article (8 of them). Ngrewal1 ( talk) 20:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ngrewal1 Actually the references cited so far make only passing mention of about a sentence. That's not WP:SIGCOV. With respect, the subject has had no significant coverage in books/academia in the 85 years since his passing, as far as the evidence available. And clearly the subject did not receive significant coverage in local news media while he was alive. So the notability claim seems to be on thin ice, IMO — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - excellent work from The Aafi; notability now demonstrated in the article Spiderone 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment all the sources are linked to Darul Uloom Deoband which is not a
Independent source Sources in Urdu are also not indepth or indepedent. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Adrawi's book there is mere mention in page 220 not indepth.
Mumbaigold (
talk)
05:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mumbaigold, That's more of being a stubborn. When notability is demonstrated by Arabic book by Abul Hai Hasani who was a rector of Nadwatul Ulama, and a known scholar, the significant posts like, "Head Teacher of Aliah University, added with the other sources of information, doesn't just become a wide significant coverage but adds to more of the notability of subject. The subject is also teacher of known scholars, some of them having an article and some not, and no source honestly is "non-independent" as I commented above. Majid Ali Jaunpuri is notable even without the coverage in the two sources, the monthly journal of Deobandi l seminary and Rizwi's book. Get up above from the systematic bias thing. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī Abul Hai Hasani is himself not notable, at least as per WP —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Someone not having an Wikipedia article doesn't become non-notable by default. Adbul Hai Hasani is a known figure in
Urdu literature, and besides that he headed one of the known Islamic seminaries in India called
Nadwatul Ulama. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you making the argument that anyone who headed
Nadwatul Ulama is automatically notable?
WP:INHERITED says no.—
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You again missed the main point, a subject meeting the GNG criteria is enough to be notable (because the subject and his works are widely cited, maybe you can try a bit searching Google), I just pointed out to two facts about the subject. Anyways, it is not necessary that a notable person need to have a Wikipedia article so that something from their books may be referenced. Articles about them may be created anytime when someone having interest in editing such topics gets time, to add an article about them. Besides this known figure in Islamic scholarship, and Urdu language literature, I've found another few sources, and would be updating the article soon with more details. Requesting you again not to miss my point and I won't be making any more comments here. Enough explanation has been offered. Thank you!─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Addition of WP:RS/ WP:IS that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV is exactly what this article needs, and would be welcome. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You again missed the main point, a subject meeting the GNG criteria is enough to be notable (because the subject and his works are widely cited, maybe you can try a bit searching Google), I just pointed out to two facts about the subject. Anyways, it is not necessary that a notable person need to have a Wikipedia article so that something from their books may be referenced. Articles about them may be created anytime when someone having interest in editing such topics gets time, to add an article about them. Besides this known figure in Islamic scholarship, and Urdu language literature, I've found another few sources, and would be updating the article soon with more details. Requesting you again not to miss my point and I won't be making any more comments here. Enough explanation has been offered. Thank you!─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you making the argument that anyone who headed
Nadwatul Ulama is automatically notable?
WP:INHERITED says no.—
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Someone not having an Wikipedia article doesn't become non-notable by default. Adbul Hai Hasani is a known figure in
Urdu literature, and besides that he headed one of the known Islamic seminaries in India called
Nadwatul Ulama. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī Abul Hai Hasani is himself not notable, at least as per WP —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- As Anupam said above, it is sadly with most of the notable scholars of South Asia who aren't covered by non-native sources despite being notable. Adrawi's book even if not with significant details, adds more to the notability when combined with other sources available. Saying again, there would be another offline sources, and there are, but it isn't a work of two minutes to get such books in one's hands. Also, you didn't performed a BEFORE. A subject that lived century ago, would've coverage online, and that too when religious bias and sectarianism is at peak in Subcontinent? I've improved the article to extent that confirms the notability, and still finding more. You may try as well? ─ The Aafī ( talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī I don't think it is productive to litigate the bias of WP policy here. The issue is not merely "online" sources. The issue is
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS/
WP:IS. The sources cited in the article as of right now are ALL from Darul Uloom Deoband, and don't pass
WP:IS. Even if they did, there isn't
WP:SIGCOV in the sources cited - every single citation refers to a passing mention of a sentence or so. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, How come is the book of Abdul Hai Hasani connected with Deoband? He had not even a long relationship with this seminary. Nadwatul Ulama is completely different institution, and so is Hasani's Arabic book completely different, and has significant details. Asīr Adrawi's book doesn't have significant details, but it is reliable and independent, and thus partially adds more to notability. For your last comment, it has no base. A most part of the page looks like a passing mention to you. Strange! ─
The Aafī (
talk)
13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī There are 6 citations right now (see reference section), 5 published by Dar al-Ulum Deoband AND do not offer significant coverage. Hasani's book is best described as self-published... Adrawi's book is not among citations, but as you say, it doesn't add any non-trivial detail anyway, so adding it wouldn't help. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, You are again wrong in saying that 5 are published by Darul Uloom Deoband. Adrawi's book is cited at two places, and a book of an Indian scholar published in
Beirut, is self published? wow. There are just two sources that are published by Darul Uloom Deoband, Rizwi's book, and the monthly journal. As I said, a scholar having served a top position during his career, and having notable students, with significant coverage in some, but not very much sources, is enough to be included on the Wikipedia. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Aafī Are you familiar with WP:VERIFY WP:NOTTRUTH? Your arguments seem to indicate otherwise, always pointing to some elusive unattainable sources, and supposed reputation of the subject event though the available citations don't support WP:N — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, You are again wrong in saying that 5 are published by Darul Uloom Deoband. Adrawi's book is cited at two places, and a book of an Indian scholar published in
Beirut, is self published? wow. There are just two sources that are published by Darul Uloom Deoband, Rizwi's book, and the monthly journal. As I said, a scholar having served a top position during his career, and having notable students, with significant coverage in some, but not very much sources, is enough to be included on the Wikipedia. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī There are 6 citations right now (see reference section), 5 published by Dar al-Ulum Deoband AND do not offer significant coverage. Hasani's book is best described as self-published... Adrawi's book is not among citations, but as you say, it doesn't add any non-trivial detail anyway, so adding it wouldn't help. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, How come is the book of Abdul Hai Hasani connected with Deoband? He had not even a long relationship with this seminary. Nadwatul Ulama is completely different institution, and so is Hasani's Arabic book completely different, and has significant details. Asīr Adrawi's book doesn't have significant details, but it is reliable and independent, and thus partially adds more to notability. For your last comment, it has no base. A most part of the page looks like a passing mention to you. Strange! ─
The Aafī (
talk)
13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī I don't think it is productive to litigate the bias of WP policy here. The issue is not merely "online" sources. The issue is
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS/
WP:IS. The sources cited in the article as of right now are ALL from Darul Uloom Deoband, and don't pass
WP:IS. Even if they did, there isn't
WP:SIGCOV in the sources cited - every single citation refers to a passing mention of a sentence or so. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mumbaigold ( talk) 11:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Ngrewal1. Owais Al Qarni ( talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: User Owais Al Qarni claims Deobandi affiliation. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, currently, article is notable.---- Irshadpp ( talk) 11:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the sourcing is quite poor - it's mostly links to other Wikipedia articles, and Deoband seems to be a site promoting religious faith-based essays, but doesn't appear to be something that will be a reliable source for neutral journalism. I did a
WP:BEFORE Google search and can't find other coverage under his name or for Muhaddith Manwi. Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article. The sourcing fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOLAR. The lack of an sourced birth date for a 20th century death is also a notability flag.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I did notice that this nomination is the nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia - odd for a newcomer. His only other contribution was the deletion nomination of another scholar's article.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also saw a comment by
Bearcat which reads as follows "Discussions about scholars or academics which fall under WP:PROF are actually trickier than usual to assess — PROF allows for the conferral of notability on standards quite different from the depth of coverage about the person, such as how widely cited they are in other works by their peers or followers. So I actually try not to weigh in on PROF discussions very much, to be honest, because in that field a person can attain notability without technically having any of the kind of in-depth sources I would look for in an article about a writer or an actor or a musician or a film director. It's not that your standards are necessarily wrong in principle — for most articles about people, we do require sources that analyze or write about the person in more depth — but when it comes to academics in particular, that kind of sourcing isn't always available at all so the notability standards are designed to assess the impact of their work rather than the presence or absence of biographical literature." So I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some information that clears this up. I've done a lot of AfDs and this one wouldn't be a keep for me.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Timtempleton, I'm sorry dear friend, but this statement
Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article.
is definitely wrong. I would be happy if you point out to one source of the article which is a mirror article of it or anything similar. The books and journals published two decades ago having significant details, aren't any mirrors to the Wikipedia article. Also, it is hard to find any coverage in English language. Thank you! ─ The Aafī ( talk) 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)- @
TheAafi: I’m referring to the search results in Google when I look him up by name, not the sources listed in the article, none of which are accessible to me anyway. Please provide a link to a single source demonstrating notability, and I will review. We usually require multiple sources anyway. Otherwise there’s no way to differentiate this from a hoax, although I trust it’s not.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer - I'm still waiting for a single link that demonstrates notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
TheAafi: I’m referring to the search results in Google when I look him up by name, not the sources listed in the article, none of which are accessible to me anyway. Please provide a link to a single source demonstrating notability, and I will review. We usually require multiple sources anyway. Otherwise there’s no way to differentiate this from a hoax, although I trust it’s not.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Timtempleton, I'm sorry dear friend, but this statement
- Comment I also saw a comment by
Bearcat which reads as follows "Discussions about scholars or academics which fall under WP:PROF are actually trickier than usual to assess — PROF allows for the conferral of notability on standards quite different from the depth of coverage about the person, such as how widely cited they are in other works by their peers or followers. So I actually try not to weigh in on PROF discussions very much, to be honest, because in that field a person can attain notability without technically having any of the kind of in-depth sources I would look for in an article about a writer or an actor or a musician or a film director. It's not that your standards are necessarily wrong in principle — for most articles about people, we do require sources that analyze or write about the person in more depth — but when it comes to academics in particular, that kind of sourcing isn't always available at all so the notability standards are designed to assess the impact of their work rather than the presence or absence of biographical literature." So I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some information that clears this up. I've done a lot of AfDs and this one wouldn't be a keep for me.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I did notice that this nomination is the nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia - odd for a newcomer. His only other contribution was the deletion nomination of another scholar's article.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, Thank you Anupam for the source you provided above, I have added it in the article. There seems to be significant detail in the K̲h̲udā Bak̲h̲sh Lāʼibreri jarnal, a journal of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, which I couldn't get a full preview on Google Books, but whatever I could get from there, I added the citation in the article. This added with the source you provided, and Abdul Hai Hasani's book, are enough to be regarded as significant coverage and I'm searching for more. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 18:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful! Kind regards, Anupam Talk 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per significant coverage in Abdul Hai Hasani's book Nuzhat al-Khawātir, Yusuf Marashli's book Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar and in the journals of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library. — Hammad (Talk!) 07:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG as no evidence so far of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/ WP:IS. Fails WP:TEACHER as no evidence yet of citing of the subject's works. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm convinced by the sources added by TheAafi in the article right after this AfD was initiated. The sources are fine to establish notability of this scholar. The subject also held a top seat (then, maybe today we would not give it a weight depending on the academic system of our time, but the time subject lived in, this is a good sign) in the then Madrasa Alia, now Aliah University. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, the added sources clearly establish the notability of the subject. Also legitimate concerns of not doing WP:BEFORE by the nominator has been raised. Also a note that the nominator is a new user with the only contributions being nominating 2 AfDs, the other being WP:Articles for deletion/Syed Mehboob Rizwi, which is also clearly a notable subject. Roller26 ( talk) 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Majid Ali Jaunpuri
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Majid Ali Jaunpuri ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article's subject fails WP:GNG , WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and lacks independent sources ,all the references mere mention the subject none of them are indepth.Contested Prod by article creator. Mumbaigold ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Significant coverage in the "History of Dārul Uloom Deoband", a reliable book by Syed Mehboob Rizwi, and Asir Adrawi's Karwān-e-Rafta, and in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband. Teacher of notable scholars and considered to be notable in his field by scholars. This AfD nomination has not considered doing a WP:BEFORE ─ The Aafī ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can you share more details about the book, e.g. publisher and ISBN? (Current citation says publisher is Darul Uloom Deoband, which would fail
WP:IS) Coverage in monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband can not be considered for notability as the
WP:SIGCOV needs to be in
WP:RS AND
WP:IS. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, Dear friend, I've added another reference and did a bit cleanup. I added a bit more information from that source, and that's a known work in not just Indian masses, but outside as well, commonly known as Nuzhat al-Khawātir. I would consider this significant, and independent as well, besides being reliable. Asīr Adrawi's book adds more to this, and rest remains the issue of
Syed Mehboob Rizwi's book. Islamic books in India and Pakistan are published by a number of book publishers, mostly without ISBN, and if you search so, you won't get any, some exceptional cases, and time being Muslim bookstores and publishers have developed, so now a part of books come with ISBN.
Syed Mehboob Rizwi, the author of Tārikh Dārul Uloom Deoband, adds a bit more (in providing information), if we do not consider it something like IS, but is still is not as much "primary". 44 years later from the subjects death, a detailed article appears in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband, I wouldn't regard it as "non-independent" source, though there is just a little connection, i.e
Jaunpuri graduated from this seminary.
. He had no other association with this seminary. Anyways, all the sources added altogether, let the subject pass notability, and I guess there would be more, but it will take time to find out. Also, there is something we call Systemic bias. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 16:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)- The Aafī Thanks for your work. In order to save the article, it would be helpful to add the other WP:RS/ WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV you can find. With respect to the essay Systemic bias, there's no denying that it exists and some WP policies may be caught in its trap, but that's not something we can address at this point, in this discussion. There may be a systematic bias in media coverage (or lack thereof) of local homosexual heroes in Pakistani or Ugandan press. Unfortunately, unless there is such coverage, those people will not get a WP article. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, Dear friend, I've added another reference and did a bit cleanup. I added a bit more information from that source, and that's a known work in not just Indian masses, but outside as well, commonly known as Nuzhat al-Khawātir. I would consider this significant, and independent as well, besides being reliable. Asīr Adrawi's book adds more to this, and rest remains the issue of
Syed Mehboob Rizwi's book. Islamic books in India and Pakistan are published by a number of book publishers, mostly without ISBN, and if you search so, you won't get any, some exceptional cases, and time being Muslim bookstores and publishers have developed, so now a part of books come with ISBN.
Syed Mehboob Rizwi, the author of Tārikh Dārul Uloom Deoband, adds a bit more (in providing information), if we do not consider it something like IS, but is still is not as much "primary". 44 years later from the subjects death, a detailed article appears in the monthly journal of Darul Uloom Deoband, I wouldn't regard it as "non-independent" source, though there is just a little connection, i.e
- Keep: There are sources, such as Al-Ilām bi man fī Tārīkh al-Hind min al-Ālām al-musamma bi Nuzhat al-Khawātir wa Bahjat al-Masāmi wa an-Nawāzir (in Arabic), authored by Abdul Hai Hasani ( father of Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi) and published by Dar Ibn Hazm, that discuss Majid Ali Jaunpuri. This is a common situation of notable individuals in South Asia and the Middle East, who are mentioned in texts in local languages, rather than in English. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 17:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Anupam The book you've referred makes only a passing mention of the subject, which doesn't rise to the level of
WP:SIGCOV. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Meliora, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the literature that mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri is primarily non-English. A source that I recently discovered includes
Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar, authored by Yusuf Marashli and published by Dar el-Marefah also mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri on pages 996 and 997. I would imagine that a plethora of literature (in print) that discusses the scholar would be found in the library of the
Darul Uloom Deoband, though accessing it would be difficult unless one goes there in person. I hope this helps. With regards,
Anupam
Talk
15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- To answer your question with regard to WP:SIGCOV, the first book I mentioned dedicated an entire page to the subject. I personally wouldn't consider this a passing mention. Kind regards, Anupam Talk 15:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Ad Meliora, thanks for your comments. As I mentioned, the literature that mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri is primarily non-English. A source that I recently discovered includes
Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar, authored by Yusuf Marashli and published by Dar el-Marefah also mentions Majid Ali Jaunpuri on pages 996 and 997. I would imagine that a plethora of literature (in print) that discusses the scholar would be found in the library of the
Darul Uloom Deoband, though accessing it would be difficult unless one goes there in person. I hope this helps. With regards,
Anupam
Talk
15:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Tried but had difficulty finding newspaper and print coverage for someone that died in 1935. There are already enough book references at the article (8 of them). Ngrewal1 ( talk) 20:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ngrewal1 Actually the references cited so far make only passing mention of about a sentence. That's not WP:SIGCOV. With respect, the subject has had no significant coverage in books/academia in the 85 years since his passing, as far as the evidence available. And clearly the subject did not receive significant coverage in local news media while he was alive. So the notability claim seems to be on thin ice, IMO — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - excellent work from The Aafi; notability now demonstrated in the article Spiderone 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment all the sources are linked to Darul Uloom Deoband which is not a
Independent source Sources in Urdu are also not indepth or indepedent. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Adrawi's book there is mere mention in page 220 not indepth.
Mumbaigold (
talk)
05:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mumbaigold, That's more of being a stubborn. When notability is demonstrated by Arabic book by Abul Hai Hasani who was a rector of Nadwatul Ulama, and a known scholar, the significant posts like, "Head Teacher of Aliah University, added with the other sources of information, doesn't just become a wide significant coverage but adds to more of the notability of subject. The subject is also teacher of known scholars, some of them having an article and some not, and no source honestly is "non-independent" as I commented above. Majid Ali Jaunpuri is notable even without the coverage in the two sources, the monthly journal of Deobandi l seminary and Rizwi's book. Get up above from the systematic bias thing. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 06:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī Abul Hai Hasani is himself not notable, at least as per WP —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Someone not having an Wikipedia article doesn't become non-notable by default. Adbul Hai Hasani is a known figure in
Urdu literature, and besides that he headed one of the known Islamic seminaries in India called
Nadwatul Ulama. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you making the argument that anyone who headed
Nadwatul Ulama is automatically notable?
WP:INHERITED says no.—
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You again missed the main point, a subject meeting the GNG criteria is enough to be notable (because the subject and his works are widely cited, maybe you can try a bit searching Google), I just pointed out to two facts about the subject. Anyways, it is not necessary that a notable person need to have a Wikipedia article so that something from their books may be referenced. Articles about them may be created anytime when someone having interest in editing such topics gets time, to add an article about them. Besides this known figure in Islamic scholarship, and Urdu language literature, I've found another few sources, and would be updating the article soon with more details. Requesting you again not to miss my point and I won't be making any more comments here. Enough explanation has been offered. Thank you!─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Addition of WP:RS/ WP:IS that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV is exactly what this article needs, and would be welcome. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You again missed the main point, a subject meeting the GNG criteria is enough to be notable (because the subject and his works are widely cited, maybe you can try a bit searching Google), I just pointed out to two facts about the subject. Anyways, it is not necessary that a notable person need to have a Wikipedia article so that something from their books may be referenced. Articles about them may be created anytime when someone having interest in editing such topics gets time, to add an article about them. Besides this known figure in Islamic scholarship, and Urdu language literature, I've found another few sources, and would be updating the article soon with more details. Requesting you again not to miss my point and I won't be making any more comments here. Enough explanation has been offered. Thank you!─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you making the argument that anyone who headed
Nadwatul Ulama is automatically notable?
WP:INHERITED says no.—
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Someone not having an Wikipedia article doesn't become non-notable by default. Adbul Hai Hasani is a known figure in
Urdu literature, and besides that he headed one of the known Islamic seminaries in India called
Nadwatul Ulama. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī Abul Hai Hasani is himself not notable, at least as per WP —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- As Anupam said above, it is sadly with most of the notable scholars of South Asia who aren't covered by non-native sources despite being notable. Adrawi's book even if not with significant details, adds more to the notability when combined with other sources available. Saying again, there would be another offline sources, and there are, but it isn't a work of two minutes to get such books in one's hands. Also, you didn't performed a BEFORE. A subject that lived century ago, would've coverage online, and that too when religious bias and sectarianism is at peak in Subcontinent? I've improved the article to extent that confirms the notability, and still finding more. You may try as well? ─ The Aafī ( talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī I don't think it is productive to litigate the bias of WP policy here. The issue is not merely "online" sources. The issue is
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS/
WP:IS. The sources cited in the article as of right now are ALL from Darul Uloom Deoband, and don't pass
WP:IS. Even if they did, there isn't
WP:SIGCOV in the sources cited - every single citation refers to a passing mention of a sentence or so. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, How come is the book of Abdul Hai Hasani connected with Deoband? He had not even a long relationship with this seminary. Nadwatul Ulama is completely different institution, and so is Hasani's Arabic book completely different, and has significant details. Asīr Adrawi's book doesn't have significant details, but it is reliable and independent, and thus partially adds more to notability. For your last comment, it has no base. A most part of the page looks like a passing mention to you. Strange! ─
The Aafī (
talk)
13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī There are 6 citations right now (see reference section), 5 published by Dar al-Ulum Deoband AND do not offer significant coverage. Hasani's book is best described as self-published... Adrawi's book is not among citations, but as you say, it doesn't add any non-trivial detail anyway, so adding it wouldn't help. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, You are again wrong in saying that 5 are published by Darul Uloom Deoband. Adrawi's book is cited at two places, and a book of an Indian scholar published in
Beirut, is self published? wow. There are just two sources that are published by Darul Uloom Deoband, Rizwi's book, and the monthly journal. As I said, a scholar having served a top position during his career, and having notable students, with significant coverage in some, but not very much sources, is enough to be included on the Wikipedia. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Aafī Are you familiar with WP:VERIFY WP:NOTTRUTH? Your arguments seem to indicate otherwise, always pointing to some elusive unattainable sources, and supposed reputation of the subject event though the available citations don't support WP:N — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, You are again wrong in saying that 5 are published by Darul Uloom Deoband. Adrawi's book is cited at two places, and a book of an Indian scholar published in
Beirut, is self published? wow. There are just two sources that are published by Darul Uloom Deoband, Rizwi's book, and the monthly journal. As I said, a scholar having served a top position during his career, and having notable students, with significant coverage in some, but not very much sources, is enough to be included on the Wikipedia. ─
The Aafī (
talk)
14:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī There are 6 citations right now (see reference section), 5 published by Dar al-Ulum Deoband AND do not offer significant coverage. Hasani's book is best described as self-published... Adrawi's book is not among citations, but as you say, it doesn't add any non-trivial detail anyway, so adding it wouldn't help. English-language Wikipedia is not a good place for every minor regional figure. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Ad Meliora, How come is the book of Abdul Hai Hasani connected with Deoband? He had not even a long relationship with this seminary. Nadwatul Ulama is completely different institution, and so is Hasani's Arabic book completely different, and has significant details. Asīr Adrawi's book doesn't have significant details, but it is reliable and independent, and thus partially adds more to notability. For your last comment, it has no base. A most part of the page looks like a passing mention to you. Strange! ─
The Aafī (
talk)
13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
The Aafī I don't think it is productive to litigate the bias of WP policy here. The issue is not merely "online" sources. The issue is
WP:SIGCOV in
WP:RS/
WP:IS. The sources cited in the article as of right now are ALL from Darul Uloom Deoband, and don't pass
WP:IS. Even if they did, there isn't
WP:SIGCOV in the sources cited - every single citation refers to a passing mention of a sentence or so. —
Ad Meliora
Talk∕
Contribs
13:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mumbaigold ( talk) 11:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Ngrewal1. Owais Al Qarni ( talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: User Owais Al Qarni claims Deobandi affiliation. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 14:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, currently, article is notable.---- Irshadpp ( talk) 11:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete the sourcing is quite poor - it's mostly links to other Wikipedia articles, and Deoband seems to be a site promoting religious faith-based essays, but doesn't appear to be something that will be a reliable source for neutral journalism. I did a
WP:BEFORE Google search and can't find other coverage under his name or for Muhaddith Manwi. Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article. The sourcing fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NSCHOLAR. The lack of an sourced birth date for a 20th century death is also a notability flag.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I did notice that this nomination is the nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia - odd for a newcomer. His only other contribution was the deletion nomination of another scholar's article.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I also saw a comment by
Bearcat which reads as follows "Discussions about scholars or academics which fall under WP:PROF are actually trickier than usual to assess — PROF allows for the conferral of notability on standards quite different from the depth of coverage about the person, such as how widely cited they are in other works by their peers or followers. So I actually try not to weigh in on PROF discussions very much, to be honest, because in that field a person can attain notability without technically having any of the kind of in-depth sources I would look for in an article about a writer or an actor or a musician or a film director. It's not that your standards are necessarily wrong in principle — for most articles about people, we do require sources that analyze or write about the person in more depth — but when it comes to academics in particular, that kind of sourcing isn't always available at all so the notability standards are designed to assess the impact of their work rather than the presence or absence of biographical literature." So I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some information that clears this up. I've done a lot of AfDs and this one wouldn't be a keep for me.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Timtempleton, I'm sorry dear friend, but this statement
Everything seems to be from Wikipedia or mirrors of the article.
is definitely wrong. I would be happy if you point out to one source of the article which is a mirror article of it or anything similar. The books and journals published two decades ago having significant details, aren't any mirrors to the Wikipedia article. Also, it is hard to find any coverage in English language. Thank you! ─ The Aafī ( talk) 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)- @
TheAafi: I’m referring to the search results in Google when I look him up by name, not the sources listed in the article, none of which are accessible to me anyway. Please provide a link to a single source demonstrating notability, and I will review. We usually require multiple sources anyway. Otherwise there’s no way to differentiate this from a hoax, although I trust it’s not.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer - I'm still waiting for a single link that demonstrates notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 02:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @
TheAafi: I’m referring to the search results in Google when I look him up by name, not the sources listed in the article, none of which are accessible to me anyway. Please provide a link to a single source demonstrating notability, and I will review. We usually require multiple sources anyway. Otherwise there’s no way to differentiate this from a hoax, although I trust it’s not.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
-
Timtempleton, I'm sorry dear friend, but this statement
- Comment I also saw a comment by
Bearcat which reads as follows "Discussions about scholars or academics which fall under WP:PROF are actually trickier than usual to assess — PROF allows for the conferral of notability on standards quite different from the depth of coverage about the person, such as how widely cited they are in other works by their peers or followers. So I actually try not to weigh in on PROF discussions very much, to be honest, because in that field a person can attain notability without technically having any of the kind of in-depth sources I would look for in an article about a writer or an actor or a musician or a film director. It's not that your standards are necessarily wrong in principle — for most articles about people, we do require sources that analyze or write about the person in more depth — but when it comes to academics in particular, that kind of sourcing isn't always available at all so the notability standards are designed to assess the impact of their work rather than the presence or absence of biographical literature." So I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some information that clears this up. I've done a lot of AfDs and this one wouldn't be a keep for me.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
19:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I did notice that this nomination is the nominator's first contribution to Wikipedia - odd for a newcomer. His only other contribution was the deletion nomination of another scholar's article.
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment, Thank you Anupam for the source you provided above, I have added it in the article. There seems to be significant detail in the K̲h̲udā Bak̲h̲sh Lāʼibreri jarnal, a journal of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, which I couldn't get a full preview on Google Books, but whatever I could get from there, I added the citation in the article. This added with the source you provided, and Abdul Hai Hasani's book, are enough to be regarded as significant coverage and I'm searching for more. ─ The Aafī ( talk) 18:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I'm glad it was helpful! Kind regards, Anupam Talk 20:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per significant coverage in Abdul Hai Hasani's book Nuzhat al-Khawātir, Yusuf Marashli's book Nathr al-jawāhir wa-al-durar fī 'ulamā' al-qarn al-rābi' ' ashar, wa-bi-dhaylihi 'Iqd al-jawhar fī 'ulamā' al-rub' al- awwal min al-qarn al-khāmis 'ashar and in the journals of Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library. — Hammad (Talk!) 07:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG as no evidence so far of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS/ WP:IS. Fails WP:TEACHER as no evidence yet of citing of the subject's works. — Ad Meliora Talk∕ Contribs 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm convinced by the sources added by TheAafi in the article right after this AfD was initiated. The sources are fine to establish notability of this scholar. The subject also held a top seat (then, maybe today we would not give it a weight depending on the academic system of our time, but the time subject lived in, this is a good sign) in the then Madrasa Alia, now Aliah University. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, the added sources clearly establish the notability of the subject. Also legitimate concerns of not doing WP:BEFORE by the nominator has been raised. Also a note that the nominator is a new user with the only contributions being nominating 2 AfDs, the other being WP:Articles for deletion/Syed Mehboob Rizwi, which is also clearly a notable subject. Roller26 ( talk) 13:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- 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.