Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziaur Rahman Azmi

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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaur Rahman Azmi

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

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

Non notable author who only got coverage from some unreliable sources, far from being independent and mainstream WP:RS media. Wareon (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. desmay (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. any sort of notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been a well accomplished person. If WP:BIO needs to be improved, tag appropriately.

Saudi Gazette profile (2017) - link
The Siasat Daily obituary (2021) - link
Al-Jami Ul-Kamil Fi Al-Hadith Al-Sahih Al-Shamil (12 Vols.) -- his work seems to be quite significant and seems to be well regarded in modern Islamic literature, which I will not claim to be an expert on. [1] [2]

I have no doubt on notability just based on the above searches. No reason to delete. Ktin (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am tagging @TheAafi:, because I have seen them work on WP:ISLAM topics. Either way, I would recommend that this AFD is posted on WP:ISLAM and feedback from the group sought before closing. My two cents is to Keep. Ktin (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, Thanks for the mention. I remember accepting this from a AfC draft because then I thought that this is a borderline notability case. Based on the reliable sources we have, I don't think the subject tends to meet WP:GNG and his book could possibly help him meet any subjective criteria. I need some time to relook. I'm currently travelling and once I reach my place, I'll try to look for some offline sources [and I guess there would be plenty in Urdu]. Thanks ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 06:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work by TheAafi in getting the sources checked. Reaffirming my keep recommendation. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two sources cited above, Saudi Gazette which use puffery language "Another legendary work accomplished by Azmi" and Siasat which also use puffery language "One of the greatest scholars of Islam in recent times" aree unreliable sources and the articles do not seem to be anything more than routine coverage. There are biographies of every writer available on such sites and their death also get coverage by these like-minded sources. These sources do not meet the criteria of WP:SECONDARY. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you genuinely arguing for this article to be deleted because the sources use puffy language? Just so you know, that's a remark on the state of journalism not on the article. Please stand down and wait for TheAafi to finish their searches on this topic.
PS: Choose your newspaper of choice and you will see that none of them are free of the "puffy language" accusation that you have just hurled. E.g. NYTimes Greatest Scholar NYTimes - Legendary Work The Guardian Greatest Scholar The Guardian Legendary Works. If you have issues with Siasat go take it to WP:RSN Ktin (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on context. For example, anyone can call Muhammad Ali as one of the greatest boxer, and that won't be counted as puffery but calling this non-notable author as among greatest or remark his works to be legendary would reek of fluffy language that is far from expectations we have built for independent sources. Dear Debasish (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources mentioning Ali as the greatest boxer is equal to sources saying a notable Islamic scholar as legendary & great". Stating that sources are "puffery" only because you think someone is clear cut non notable because he has not been covered very much online is explicit bias. If Ali is seen as a legend, Azmi is seen as a legend to those who have discussed him. As Ktin said, this should be seen as a remark on the state of journalism. Anyways, I'll post my analysis of the native sources discussing Azmi in a day or two. Thanks ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has made very significant contribution to the hadith scholarship and his works on the subject have been widely acclaimed by scholars of the subject. There is plethora of coverage available online in Urdu that I'd claim that this meets WP:GNG. Much more offline. I've updated the article partially and included several sources. His death wasn't just noticed by Indian media but Daily Jang and Daily Pakistan have given him attention as well. I've also added a reference from Urdu Digest, a well known journal published from Pakistan and that's about two pages about him. To conclude, this clearly passes WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no evidence supplied that the subject's achievements have "been widely acclaimed by scholars". Please supply translations of the non-English sources so that editors can check their validity. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well. There are several examples of this. Irfan Siddiqui in his article From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi (translated title) mentions that Azmi's work Al-Jamiul Kamil is undoubtedly the largest collection of sound ahadith throughout the Islamic history. Irfan is a well known columnist and journalist from Pakistan and the article appeared in the Daily Jang (for the newspaper piece I've offline), though I've its reference from the Urdu Digest Journal. Indian Islamic scholar Razi ul Islam Nadwi considers him a famous muhaddith and states that Azmi all alone did such a work which actually research academies do with a big team of researchers "with having several facilities". There are several offline sources that indicate Azmi's works being appreciated by Islamic scholars. Besides what we have online, there's one book in Urdu entitled The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam (translated title) which is over 216 pages and discusses Azmi significantly. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are not enough; we require in-depth sources about the subject. Please supply translations of any non-English sources so that editors can judge for themselves if notability is met. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't say "it is just a mention". Those are separate articles that significantly discuss Azmi. I just quoted few statements. Apologies if you misunderstood. I cannot supply translations of each and every work that discusses Azmi in Urdu. However, from Nadwi's article, I am trying to roughly state the following excerpt:

One of his uniqueness was that he was not a Muslim by birth, but he belonged to a Hindu family in Bilaria Ganj town of Azamgarh district. He has done a great job of teaching and writing in the field, he alone has done such a great job that academies have to do with abundant facilities and a large team of researchers. Irfan Siddiqui's detailed article is also helpful.

To the best of my experience with Islamic biographies, he passes WP:GNG for 1: there's a 216 pages book by Khalid Azmi published from New Delhi that significantly covers his life and works. 2: There are several significant articles on his life & works by Irfan Siddiqui & Islamic scholar Razi ul Islam Nadwi and several others. I'd like to ping Vice regent and Hindustanilanguage and Gazal world who understand Urdu language and can independently assess Azmi's notability. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a full translation to justify your claims then. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

~~@TheAafi: can you provide links to the Urdu sources?VR _talk 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Actually, I just saw these sources. @Xxanthippe: asking a user to write the "full translation" is unreasonable. For example, one of the sources provided in the Bibliography is a 12 page article. I think you should assume WP:AGF here that Aafi isn't lying. I know someone who is fluent in Urdu and will try to have them verify this as well.VR _talk 05:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mentioned on both the article and here do not verify the individual to be notable outside his own spectrum. AnM2002 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just asking do you know Urdu? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 08:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one needs to be notableoutside his own spectrum to pass WP:GNG, whatever that means. Based on the analysis above, I think the article is good. Ktin (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That depends upon the nature of the spectrum. Whatever the case, notability must be actually demonstrated by sources and not by editor's claims of what exist in sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It is necessary to be notable outside the sources that are predictably going to write about you. Since none of these sources are mainstream there is a clear need for sources that are independent of the subject. AnM2002 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: Can you explain why these sources don't meet WP:Independent? VR _talk 08:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent or not, do they prove notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Because if we depend on them then it won't be possible to write "non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject" as required by WP:INDEPENDENT. They are at by large puff pieces as already explained above. By the language that these sources have used, one can identify that they are not neutral. There are thousands of such individuals who write about Islam and happen to get coverage upon their death by the publishers whom they are closely related with, that's why significant coverage from independent sources is required. AnM2002 (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnM2002: I think you're confusing independence with bias. WP:IIS is defined as "have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." What conflict of interest do Aafi's sources have with the subject? Keep in mind that WP:BIASEDSOURCES can be acceptable as reliable sources.VR _talk 14:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 10:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this showing that the Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf expressed condolences on his death; and a review of one of his books. It’s clear his reputation was international, with coverage outside his adopted country in Pakistan and Palestine. There’s more but my Arabic is too slow to plough through it all and I’m unfamiliar with some of the titles so can’t be sure of their general reliability. Mccapra (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to provide translations to convince editors that these sources convey notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Can't you assume AGF on editors about non-English sources? --Gazal world (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of judgement and for that, evidence is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well why would you want to trust my translations? Translate them yourself with Google so you can form your own view. Demanding that other editors translate sources for you in an AfD discussion is ridiculous. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I had someone look at these sources and they verified that each one of them gives WP:SIGCOV to the article's subject.VR _talk 18:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vice regent, Thanks for that. I've included several other resources. Pakistani jurist Mahmood Ahmed Ghazi cites Azmi in his "Muhazrat e Hadees" and Pakistani Islamic historian & biographer Muhammad Ishaq Bhatti discusses Azmi in about ten pages in his 2015 work Chamnistan-e-Hadees. Given this much attention, this article is a clear cut GNG pass. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 18:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2021 (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.