Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risala Roohi Shareef


 * 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. KTC (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Risala Roohi Shareef

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An entirely Urdu-language book failing WP:N and with no interest for an English reader  kashmiri TALK  10:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is not the first article on Urdu-language book. Also, it is a popular book as cited with references. Recheck your false objection as it does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Nainntara (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)

wrong Tag of deletion 39.34.111.102 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This Article was first published on Wikipedia ‎dated 5 December 2011. So its 3 years and 28 days older. Many Wikipedian make their contributions to improve this article.
 * Risala Roohi Shareef is a very famous Book of Sufi Saint Sultan Bahu which is originally in Persian and Arabic language. This book is about 325 years old, and very famous between Sufism and people of Sarwari Qadiri order,
 * This book is also translated from Persian and Arabic to English language with the name of "Of The Spirit" translated by Prof. Syed Ahmed Saeed Hamadani and published by Ghulam Dastagheer Academy Jhang with ISBN# 969-8241-29-9 First Edition in 1996.So English readers also have interest with this book and article due to its subject and popularity.
 * All the three versions of Persian,English and Urdu language of this book are freely available online. So deletion of this Article is Absolutely wrong. Even the respected User:Kashmiri is clearly unaware about its original language and historical aspect.


 * The article was written only by two editors, one being yourself editing as Nainntara. All of the the remaining edits were purely of technical nature (repairing links, formatting references, etc.). The English translation fails WP:NBOOK as well, please take time to read WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  kashmiri TALK  18:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The author of this book is so historically and significant See Sultan Bahu 182.178.143.229 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(I have removed the section heading from this !vote as it messed up the numbering in the AFD log page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sultan Bahoo's 350 years old famous,popular book Risala Roohi Shareef,is put to deletion line by User:kashmiri.

Risala Roohi Shareef is 350 years old and very popular book in Persian language of sultan bahoo and already translated in Urdu, English and Arabic. The subject translation is in Urdu and is the best translation in Urdu as well as printed edition.

User:kashmiri entered a war against the holy saint sultan bahoo, the readers of sultan bahoo, teachings of sultan bahoo, sultan bahoo school of thought, followers and lovers of sultan bahoo and sarwar qadri order due to his personal issues with this school of thought and personality of sultan bahoo.The argument of User:kashmiri is not an argument based on knowledge but this has become a battle with sultan bahoo's school of thoughts.

He has used Wikipedia policy for his evil aim. Punjabsind82 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Delete The book fails WP:GNG as there don't seem to be any independent sources establishing notability at all. The citations currently in the article are either tied to organizations printing and selling the book or promoting the religious revival movement, or to blogs. Online searches reveal books mentioning this book, but with content ripped off of Wikipedia or said websites; essentially just self-published, non-academic fluff. This simply appears like an attempt to promote an otherwise non-notable publication. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-published book Shii (tock) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

; WARNING

@ 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).”

@MezzoMezzo You really need to get your facts right. This book is available all over the internet through free download and without any cost. Hence, you cannot possibly name this a commercial promotion. The content has 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. Also, this book is very famous and is quite NOTABLE being translated by so many people. So, you can brush up your intelligence by checking out the REFERENCES listed within and below the article. There is absolutely no harm in RE-READING the article. They are not even limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. You also seem a little CONFUSED. It is not 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. I am quite sympathetic that Spiritual Beliefs, Mysticism and Tasawwuf are not your area of specialization and you are having trouble editing this article but you are not obliged to edit this article or related articles anyway. 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 and can take such responsibility. Merely indulging in EDIT WARS would not do you much good as an editor.

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 “bunch of editors” 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) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (pitch)  @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (consult)  @ 20:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2015 (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.