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. There are clearly numerous book sources explaining why this poem is notable. It would be a great benefit to the article if this explanation was added to the article along with some of the sources. SpinningSpark 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarana-e-Milli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

No proof given for how this is notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google Books says otherwise. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will be beneficial for this AfD if you reply why this poem is notable (giving citations for the same).--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see below the sources provided by SMS. And next time, don't try to hat people's comments when they actually take the initiative to prove something, rather than just sitting and making empty comments. Mar4d (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete an article is not kept simply because it has Google books hits. This is a poem by a Notable author agree, but I don't see so far what makes this poem notable. The article at the moment says nothing that puts trust on notability. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So even with all the sources available, you think it is not notable? Great argument. Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test before you make fun of a fellow editor, this sarcasm does not help you or this article in any way. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously are not familiar with Iqbal. There is no WP:BURDEN on me to prove anything, I have already pointed out that the sources are out there. You can do yourself a service in verifying those sources and perhaps even volunteering to add them into the article. Making empty comments without checking is equivalent to thin air. Mar4d (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For being notable, the article should have secondary sources which have in-depth coverage of the topic. Most of Google books results don't have that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Weak Delete per the comments of the editor with an unreadable signature starting with "D" as well as the comments of Vibhijain. Not every writing that exists is notable enough for a stand-alone article. See Wikipedia:Notability (books) Perhaps, based on his bio article, the case could be made that the author "so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." It is hard to be sure he is the major literary figure that his Wikipedia bio article states, since it sounds a bit biased. Per his bio, he wrote tens of thousands of "verses," and I am reluctant to allow every thing he authored automatic notability for standalone articles knowing only what the Wikipedia bio says. Another issue is that unless there are reliable sources for the meaning and reception of each such work, the article would only be a reprint of the original work and original research or opinions of the Wikipedia editor writing the article. Is this particular work taught in schools? Has it been the subject of criticism and analysis by independent and reliable sources? Has it won awards? Give us some basis for notability beyond hand-waving reference to unspecified things at "Google Book." The burden is indeed on those seeking to show that something is notable. Edison (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The poem certainly satisfies WP:GNG per following sources:
  • Ramakant (2001). Contemporary Pakistan: Trends and issues. Kalinga Publications. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-8187644217. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Ema. Esa Jaina (2000). Muslim ethos as reflected in Urdu literature. Rawat Publications. p. 183. ASIN B0006FEIBQ.
  • M.S. Jain (2 February 2005). Muslim Political Identity. Rawat Publications. p. 208. ISBN 978-8170338888.
  • S.S. Shashi (1 September 2002). Encyclopedia Indica: A Grand Tribute to Culture, Art, Architecture, Religion and Development. Anmol Publications. p. 162. ISBN 978-8170418597.
  • Muhammad Hasan (1987). A new approach to Iqbal. Publications Division, Govt. of India. p. 66. ASIN B0006EPOTW.
  • Bapsi Sidhwa (30 August 2006). City of Sin and Splendour: Writings on Lahore. Penguin Global. p. 366. ISBN 978-0143031666.
  • Sisir Kumar Das (1 January 2010). A History of Indian Literature 1911-1956: Struggle for Freedom: Triumph and Tragedy. Sahitya Akademi. p. 367. ISBN 978-8172017989.
  • Akbar Ahmed (19 September 1997). Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin. Routledge. p. 72. ISBN 978-0415149662.
  • Ralph Russell (15 January 1993). The Pursuit of Urdu Literature: A Select History. Zed Books. p. 180. ISBN 978-1856490290.

  WP:BEFORE would have helped here. There are still plenty of reliable sources which I haven't listed here. I will add the above and other sources to article when I get time. --SMS ^Talk 20:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • Comment Have you actually read what these books say about the poem? We are not easily swayed by a random wall of citations which do not support notability.There is nothing viewable in the cites from Sashi and Ramakant. There is only a passing ref in the viewable cites from Sidhwa, Hasan and Das. The cites from Russell, Jain, and Ema look to be supportive of notability. Please only cite reliable sources where you have confirmed significant coverage. Edison (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume like this. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. It doesn't "look" like that when even the page numbers are provided above. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought its obvious that I have read those sources, if I say that it satisfies GNG per these sources, because I thought it means I have read all these sources and GNG. And probably that is why I provided page numbers. Next time will mention that I have read these sources. --SMS ^Talk 13:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very common for persons here to find things at Google Book search, link to them and claim they prove notability, or even to add them as references, without having seen them. It is also common, though improper, to copy refs from a foreign language Wikipedia, without actually verifying what they say. Since you have access to all the books cited, would you please quote a sentence from the books by Sashi and Ramakant that shows the significant coverage we look for? Edison (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the whole point of WP:AOBF. Don't think such is common, when some one adds a ref, you've to assume they've read it. If they haven't they won't be able to further debate on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to be the one to inform you that it is all too common for editors (even experienced ones) to add links to references they have not personally read. There is no violation of AGF in it when someone adds a wall of references a few hours after an AFD opens, listing books that are easily found online, but without online view of the contents, or with only an online view of a one sentence snippet. It is reasonable to inquire further about whether the person has the references in front of him or ready access. Edison (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

“	Some interpretors have tried to present this Tarana-e-milli to imply pan Islamism. This is a misinterpretation of Iqbal's thought. He was trying to demolish the concept of 'Vataniyat'. Formerly he had said that India was the vatan for all its inhabitants; now he said that the whole world was vatan for the Muslims, thereby denying the concept of attachment and loyalty to a defined geographical territory.	”
— Ramakant, Contemporary Pakistan: trends and issues, Volume 1

“	Iqbal's other poems Tarana-e-Hind (The Indian anthem) and Tarana-e-Milli (the Muslim Anthem) also became very popular among masses and used to be sung as symbols of National or Muslim identity at public meetings.	”
— S. S. Shashi, Encyclopaedia Indica, Volume 100

--SMS ^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In case you are not aware, the google book link is added above for a reason . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't read the above sources please read them before saying anything, in case you don't read any policy/guideline/essay before quoting it somewhere, please read it and in case you are here just to oppose I am sorry I can't help you, consider that I haven't written anything at this page. Regards --SMS ^Talk 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBig: That's just really lame of you. See my previous argument. Notability has been proven and the sources can be added into the article. Unless you don't want the article to be improved. Your comment above shows that you just don't get it, do you? Mar4d (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too much personal attack and bluster. We do not add "sources" to articles without reading them. Only a few of the online links above would be of any use. I noted three which are promising. A snip which only shows that a work was mentioned should not be added as a reference, until someone has viewed the physical book, which will in this case likely not be available in the countries where most editors of the English Wikipedia live. Editors in Pakistan might have an easier time finding them in a library, and could be helpful in adding them as references to the article and other articles about poems by this author. Some of the links provide no view at all of any text, and should not be presented as any proof of notability unless someone has actually read them. Edison (talk) 04:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: historical anthem that is definitely notable and much covered in text books and other sources. Just because sources are not present in the article is not enough to call the works of such notable authors as non-notable. The links at the top of this very AFD give a lot of sources to establish notability [1] [2]. The article should be tagged as unsourced and improved instead of being deleted. Remember that articles with subjects that are not notable should be deleted, not those that have a bulk load of sources and just not referenced yet, that's a clean up task per WP:COMMONSENSE. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: I have added reliable source,and will try to add more reliable sources.There is again darkness and shines, I choose "shines", because it is notable,is it not?.Someone must read Iqbal first, then take step.Justice007 (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been added more sources as promise,editors of one channel can read the importance and notability of the poem!!.Justice007 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "channel" you refer to?Edison (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well,who understands, it goes there. It is very common to say,why someone is notable, because of his work?. When Muhammad Iqbal, his poetry books and literary works are notable, but poems are not notable?.As someone say William Shakespeare is notable but his plays and poems are not notable. What's a senseless idea and concept about. I consider Darkness Shines is a good editor, because he keeps other editors busy with his tagging activities to Pakistan related articles. I have read, but do not remember in which section of rule and policy, "to be bold but not foolish." I draw from this sentence that two rights, to be bold and to be foolish.May be Darkness Shines follows both of those. SMS and lTopGunl have provided academic books written by professional academic authors,that are being ignored Actually what are we discussing here??.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Justice007, you are applying blogs as a source :), please stop that!!! and do not make it more objectionable article.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very sorry to say that please learn more before preaching anyone and take a look at this WP:RSOPINION. Justice007 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off course you should be Sorry FOR this! and remember to maintain the adequate on WP, do not abuse the editors as you did above, if you have objection discuss like a gentleman if you are.

Are you arguing that the blog source you applied here is Reliable source ???? by applying blog sources you are directing the article into more questionable direction, and I am cautioning you prior to you apply more blogs and make the article more questionable ??? justify your source if not it will be removed ??? The author of this blog does not have any CV, and he is not a notable author, see his available details here, If you are so sure of this blog source then present your research ??? Just abusing the editors will not prove your source a reliable :) Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the links from the search results I pointed out, many might be useful for improving content too if you're at getting it to WP:HEY. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: notability established by independent coverage in reliable sources. Deletion is not indicated, rather this article in desperate need of improvement. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:17, 14 June 2012 (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.