Talk:Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi

Sources

I have reverted the edits of IP to this article who removed valid sources published by news portals saying that it was all spam. They opened up an ANI thread against me accusing me of self-promotion and spam. I've copyedited the article and tried to minimise the usage of one of the sources which happens to be my article [per WP:SELFCITE..]. I'd like experienced editors like @Goldsztajn:, @Vice regent: and @Toddy1: to review my recent edits to this article and tell me if anything is missing and could be improved. Thanks. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 06:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this the edit you're referring to? VR _talk 06:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent, This and this both; all of these are strange edits. The IP said in edit summary that they are removing "more spam" but added back the same sources at two places in the latter edit, and then tagged the article with notability. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The notability tag doesn't seem justified.VR _talk 07:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Vice regent, The IP has added it once again. Pathetic! ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 08:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Need to prove his notability from better sources, not from self written hoaxes. 37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

lol, it was verifiable, go and check. 37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

HindustanUrduTimes

@Dennis Brown: May I know how HindustanUrduTimes is a reliable source ? It looks like full of ads blog. I think the self cite editor must either prove it's reliability/ Notability or remove it. It has been thrice in past 24 hours, when this editor has reinsert his/ her self cite work, first at Mufti Faizul Waheed which was replaced by better source from The Indian Express and Greater Kashmir, since it was removed, now they have turned to Nizamuddin Asir Adrawi to cite their own work from an Urdu blog names HindustanUrduTimes, which is seem to be full of ads. Hope you will take necessary action in this regard. May I know how citing back to back the self written sources is not a Wikipedia:Spam ? Here is the link of his/ her 2nd and 3rd Selfcite in past 24 hours. 37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, both the GK source and Indian Express don't support the information completely where you added them. I added that for a reason. I've changed HindustanUrduTimes in this article to a journal article. You wrongly tagged this as having too much primary sources, changing source to a false one, and also called a news portal as "spam/blog". You shouldn't be doing this much overreaction. That said, please login from your regular account. A run off the mill IP doesn't behave this way. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

lol, it was verifiable, go and check. 37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

This article is mostly based on Sources related to subject of the article, primary source tag is justified. 37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

which source is directly related to the subject? All sources are secondary, and secondary sources are sources which establish notability. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

May be you are referring blog as secondary sources, the whole article is based on unreliable authors and blog, most of the author you have cited were failing Wikipedia: Notability.37.111.216.122 (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can you make a list of sources that you consider either (1) primary or (2) unreliable. For each source, please explain why you consider them such. Since I do not understand which sources you object to or why, I am going to revert your tagging and will keep reverting until you explain properly which sources you object to and why.10:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)-- Toddy1 (talk)

Because I do not understand your objections to specific sources, the notability tag had to go too -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1: May I know how, Qindeel online, Baseerat online which seems to be Urdu blog full of ads, along with "Pasban", (probably an Urdu journal written by unreliable and non notable author named, Aqib Anjum) are considered as reliable or good source? Also can you please explain these two sources as secondary? *1). Asir Adrawi. Dastan Na'tamam (November 2009 ed.). Kutub Khana Husainia, Deoband. p. 13,21–28,331.

2). "Urdu Ke Farogh Mai Ulama-e-Deoband Ka 150 Saala Kirdar". Fikr-e-Inqelab (in Urdu). All India Tanzeem Ulama-e-Haque. 5 (112): 533. January 2017. These two sources are written by Deoband authors to which probably the Subject of an article belongs. First one seem to be written by subject himself, may I know how they can be seondary? 37.111.216.212 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether an author is notable has no bearing on whether it is a reliable source. Whether an author is Deobandi has no bearing on whether his work is a secondary source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please prove the concerned blogs and journal as reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources, concerned sources as secondary and concerned author as authoritative? Please read Wikipedia: Reliable Source, which states, reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. 37.111.218.70 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

None of the cited sources are self-published and nowhere is any blog cited. Citing primary sources is allowed in several cases but they do not add anything to notability. That said, the type of coverage that a subject needs to have in order to be notable according to WP:GNG should be "independent" and "reliable" and "significant" in terms of discussing its subject. The sources of this article are thus as: 1: Maulana Asir Adrawi: An introduction, An independent article that significantly discusses its subject. The publisher is Baseerat Online, a news portal, independent of the subject. 2: Mawlāna Asīr Adrawi: The prisinor of pen and knowledge, authored by Nayab Hasan, an author who once again has no connection with the subject and neither does the publisher, Qindeel Online. The article significantly discusses the subject. Qindeel Online is an independent news portal, and not an user-generated site. 3: We have another source, Urdu Ke Farogh Mai Ulama-e-Deoband Ka 150 Saala Kirdar from a journal called Fikr-e-Inqelab, and it has more than a paragraph about the subject, and it doesn't have any connection with the subject. 4: Another major thing is the scholarly status of Adrawi. His works have been cited by scholars such as Barbara Metcalf and several others. Several of his books are taught in the curriculum at several madrasas and many others are consider basic and primary sources of various Darul Uloom Deoband related issues, so this is yet another green signal for me. I hope this answers several baseless aspirations. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)