Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/M. A. Khan


 * 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. This is a difficult case, but ultimately there is a consensus that notability has not been adequately demonstrated for this subject. BD2412 T 05:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

M. A. Khan
Lack of notability concern. As the sources we have only identify the subject as "M. A. Khan" it turns out this is ambiguous and I previous incorrectly associate the article here with the English Wikipedia article and it was only when following through this reversion d:Special:Diff/1840744851 that I realised my abandoned user Djm-leighpark's link Special:Diff/3227499 was a mistake. I have explored the possibility our subject here is / d:Q6783825 but I am minded on the balance of probability they are likely not the same (There is a poor quality contribution on the enWP article that I have ignored.  I have done some explores on VIAF, OCLC, the internet archive library and the Islam-watch website and have not found anything to make that linkage. I appreciate this author's writings may be contentious.  A previous incarnation with this article title was deleted for an expired PROD. Would like to get communities view on article's retention or if additional information can be gleaned.  Depending on how that is goes/is going I may make appropriate edits on Wikidata. Thankyou. — DeirgeDeltac 15:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Vote closes: 16:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator has not voted delete, only expressed concern. --ᘙ (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to lack notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. within the field of Ex-Muslim writers and activists, he is notable, as shown by comments from Ibn Warraq and Noni Darwish in the section M._A._Khan and a google search shows that the person and work is relatively well known (here is an interview ). Because the person is an apostate (a capital offence), the article may be controversial to some - it is also suspicious that the link that DeirgeDel shows is an edit by a throwaway sock? account, User:PradeepBihar93, with one single edit on 24 February 2023 (it would not be the first time that socks have been deleting links from wikidata from articles about Ex-Muslims or related topics). Pinging also who has written a lot about this topic on wikiquote. --ᘙ (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I observe you are the author of the Wikiquote article. You have chosen not to link it to the English Wikipedida . The implication is the Wikiquote article and English Wikipedia article are not the same person.  As the English Wikipedia article is associated with d:Q16015177 I am minded this Wikiquote article should not be associated with that data item.  My big concern is there seem to be two or more "M. A. Khan"'s in existance.  Do you for instance have further detains on the one in Wikiquote, Year of Birth; full name.  Some way of reliably identifying works/quotes to this individual? I really don't think there is anything "suspicious" about my concerns.  Thankyou. -- DeirgeDeltac 00:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear enough in writing that the single purpose account, User:PradeepBihar93, was "suspicious", not you. The author is known by the name M. A. Khan, which might also be a pseudonym (I'm not sure). --ᘙ (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The person looks remarkable. There is an article about him on the English Wikipedia. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns that Masood Ali Khan is notable. My concerns is that M. A. Khan is not the same person as Masood Ali Khan.  Looking at the biographical information I have been able to gather I am not seeing a match.  I convinced myself 75% they were not a match based on the biographical information I was able to gather.  Unless that match can be made with certainty by W:en:WP:RS.  If the community chooses to keep this article I would in good faith strongly dispute dispute any like to the Masood Ali Khan article in lieu of additional evidence but would be happy to accept a community decision to keep the article. -- DeirgeDeltac 21:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I've spotted you've good faith sitelinked the wikiquote article from Q6783825 at d:Special:Diff/1888734613 as you've seemed to provide evidence these are the same person. If they were the same person I would have expected to see Islamic Jihad: A legacy of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery (2011) listed on Masood Ali Khan's VIAF record; and I can't see it there.I welcome WP:RS evidence that links these together. -- DeirgeDeltac 14:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Recuse: Keep: Neutral:*Delete: (nominator): I have created a new wikidata item to ensure this article is not mixed with with Masood Ali Khan/Q6783825. If reliable evidence is presented these are the same person then a wikidata merge is possible and I have no issue for changing my vote to keep.  In many ways I would like to retain the article but ultimately I find currently notability is not achieved with particular noting links of M. A. Khan and Islamwatch.  If RS can be found then I am willing to change my mind.  But please ensure sources are refering to this subject and not someone else of the same name and are independent. Thankyou -- DeirgeDeltac 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Following presentation and analysis of sources at this time I am between weak keep and weak delete and therefore going to neutral at this point. I would expect an AfD on enWP to fail and would not expect it to get anywhere near an enWP AfC pass but its not completely too far away. There is also an inclusivity policy here at Wikiquote and with the agreed distinction Masood and this M. A. Khan we hae some accuracy and things can also be verified. I not now longer feel comfortable voting full delete. -- DeirgeDeltac 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The identification by the creator of a third acceptable source has moved me to !vote keep. -- DeirgeDeltac 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to interactions with the creator I have decided to recuse my vote. I am very minded what is in my opinion is an overly long VfD and the impact it has had on my time resource has caused me to do this. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDeltac 22:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I did something wrong or didn't explain myself enough. --ᘙ (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you have, as you say, no concerns that Masood Ali Khan is notable, then IMHO you also should have no concerns about this person.  Both are authors, and when comparing the popularity of their books on Amazon and Goodreads, it is clear that this M.A. Khan is by far more popular than  Masood Ali Khan  (but beware that there are several people with the name Masood Ali Khan, the wikipedia article even wrongly attributes the book Encyclopedia of world geography to the person, when in fact this was authored by a different person with the same name. There is also a musician with the same name.) This person has many reviews at Amazon while Masood has no reviews at all for his books on Amazon. At Goodreads (and also at Google Scholar) it is the same picture. This clearly establishes that, based on popularity, this M.A. Khan is more popular author than the other author Masood. If Masood is notable, then this person should also be notable. (however, I do have doubts if Masood would meet the NACADEMIC guideline on wikipedia.) This person M. A. Khan has notability as an Ex-Muslim writer, activist and secular critic of religion of the first decade of the 21st century, see also the reviews by Bill Warner, Ibn Warraq and Nonie Darwish, and others, and interviews with Jamie Glazov, and others. And his website was called a "leading" ex-Muslim initiative  in this interview  --ᘙ (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * : Perhaps my first concern was to establish the Wikiquote M. A. Khan is a different person to Masood Ali Khan on the English Wikipedia. I think we agree on that although @ keep vote and argument seems to rely upon them being the same person and as it currently sits I would expect the closer to dismiss their vote for that reason.  I have no concerns about Masood Ali Khan's notability as they have an article on the English Wikipedia which is generally taken as sufficient for notability here.  Specifically I would like to tweak that article in the light of the problems you have mentioned but I am indefinitely blocked from that place and if I requested anyone else to do so it get into the risk area of proxy editing.  M. A. Khan does not have an article on the English Wikipedia so notability has to be considered here and I generally point people at the W:en:WP:THREE test. I see many of your points as failing W:en:WP:RS, M. A. Khan is associated with Islam-watch and that immediately fails as an RS.  Amazon reviews can be faked and bought.  As for Bill Warner, Ibn Warraq and Nonie Darwish, and others, and interviews with Jamie Glazov I think most refer to Islam-watch.  There may be notability here, but an article on English Wikipedia is the way to prove it.  If they are notable such an article should be easy.  Is there a reason why you have not created an article on the English Wikipedia? -- DeirgeDeltac 23:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The reviews and interviews are mostly about his book, here is another interview that shows that his writings were influential. The Amazon, Goodreads and Google Scholar citations do not look fake, and Google Scholar also shows many citations (again, more than for Masood). You should also keep in mind that his notability was in the period 2005 to 2010 (from checking his website, most of his writings are from this period), and searching the Internet today may be a poor indicator because of how the Internet changes. --ᘙ (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply (fully) cite your three best sources for M. A. Khan: Lets say at a push we accept the (,2009) Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam (at politicalislam) can you please present your best two other sources as full citations as the closer and community should not be expected to wade through a quagmire of half-cites to non-RS sources. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDeltac 13:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why 3 sources and not 4 or 5? WP:THREE is only an essay for wikipedia. I don't think there should be restrictions like 3 instead of 4 or 5. Some articles have more than 3 sources than should be looked at to get the full picture. I probably won't have time to look into this again, but I am adding these sources:

Since this is wikiquote, here is an example where the author's opinion is quoted in another work:


 * Thus began the caliphate’s centuries-long slave trade arrangement with pagan Scandinavian pirates who shared in Islam’s hostility for Christians. Starting in the mid-600s and for nearly three centuries thereafter, “Viking raids were elicited by the Muslim demand for white-skinned European slaves.”15 Indeed, it is “impossible to disconnect Islam from the Viking slave-trade,” argues M. A. Khan, a former Muslim from India, “because the supply was absolutely meant for meeting [the] Islamic world’s unceasing demand for the prized white slaves” and for “white sex-slaves.”16 Emmet Scott goes so far as to argue that “it was the caliphate’s demand for European slaves that called forth the Viking phenomenon in the first place.”17
 * Raymond Ibrahim_ Victor Davis Hanson - Sword and Scimitar (2018)

Here is an example where the author is discussed and cited:


 * In today’s harsh reality, the term ‘jihad’ is more often than not associated with terrorism and extremism committed by Muslims. This phenomena is accentuated by the infamous 9/11 tragedy, which are allegedly carried out by al-Qaeda, a Muslim terrorist group. Majority of the Western community views jihad as a religious holy war among Muslim fundamentalists against anyone who is not a Muslim, which negatively positions the image of Islam (Kalin, 2004). Muslims who are thought to be a jihadists and believe in martyrdom, are often portrayed as extortionist, polygamist, murderer (of ‘infidel’ Muslims who convert to other religions), and anti-Semitic (Darwish, 2006; Khan, 2008). Maira (2009) who debated from the western lens argued that 'good' Muslims are public Muslims who can provide information about the oppression of women in Islam, and support the American 'war on terror' policy under the pretext of 'benevolent imperialism'. On the other hand, 'bad' Muslims are the ones who advocate hatred, racism, and anti-Semitism among the Arabs and Muslims. Nevertheless, Khan (2008) highlighted positive statements by academicians across the United States on jihad, which is viewed positively as a struggle to build a society that is fair and practices morally acceptable conduct. It is difficult to completely dispel the commoners’ misconception of the true meaning of jihad, as news on offensive jihad military acts are prevalent in the mass media compared to jihad in the social and economic context discussed by academic theorists and advocators that are published in journals
 * Sulaiman, Mohamed & Othman, Abdul & Larbani, Moussa & Ismail, Izhairi & Yusoff, Daniel & Hamzah, Muhammad. (2015). The Applicability of Prophet Muhammad’s Strategies in his Battles and Campaigns in Modern Business. Asian Social Science. 11. Canadian Center of Science and Education

This author's notability seems comparable to Ali Sina, and at least as notable as most at Category:Articles with no corresponding English Wikipedia article, which are kept. But I understand that you may have a different opinion. --ᘙ (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The THREE essay is wise as while only two RS are really necessary the presentation of three gives an insurance should one fail. I don't think its good for Wikiquote to have to discuss the margins like this which is why the persisted English Wikipedia article is really necessary for sanity.  In this case,  my best good faith judgement at this time is to move to neutral based on the following best effort good faith assessment : -- DeirgeDeltac 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Ibrahim, R. (2018). Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War Between Islam and the West. United States: Hachette Books. ISBN 9780306825569 is an RS as you suggest, albeit I'd hate to have to defend that at an enWP AfD. -- DeirgeDeltac 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (2) I've said from my point of view I'd accept (,2009) Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam (at politicalislam) -- DeirgeDeltac 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (3) (Sulaiman, Othman et. al. 2015) I'd expect to see rejected as an RS as 'Canadian Center of Science and Education'' is a predatory journal per w:en:WP:Reliable sources. -- DeirgeDeltac 20:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks, it is not straightforward to find sources because M.A. Khan is a very common name but I found another source which discusses Khan at length : Raphael Israeli, Itinerant Jihadis: Arab and Muslim War Volunteers, 2017:

According to Muhammad Ali Khan,“ who studied the issue of jihad and jihadi warriors on the various fronts of early Islamic expansion, particularly in the days of Prophet Mohammed, all male Muslims of fighting age, and in good physical condition, were sup- posed to participate in jihad campaigns. As the Islamic polity quickly expanded and became more organized, the state began recruiting the jihadis as regular soldiers, and put them on the state payroll. Bur others, inspired solely by the spirit of jihad for achiev- ing martyrdom and paradise, dedicated themselves as volunteers for fighting in Allah's cause. These jihadis used to engage in jihad when opportunities for war against infidels arose. ‘They were not paid from the state payroll but from the zakat (the fourth Pillar of Islam, which mandated the paying of alms by all Beli sively for religious causes). For example, when Muhammad bin Qasim opened up a new frontier for jihadi conquests in northwest India with his six thousand Arab soldiers, the desire for martyrdom ‘was so strong amongst the devout Muslims in his party, that they ‘were willing to travel hundreds of miles to foreign lands to engage in jihadi wars. It was for this reason that about twenty thousand volunteers travelled one thousand miles in 965 from Iran to Syria for the opportunity to fight Byzantium. Similarly, much later, the Ottoman conquerors also drew Muslim warriors from far-off Mus- lim lands flocking to engage in jihad against Christians in the Bal- kans.

Khan also says that after the initial surge of Islam, the jihadi expeditions became more infrequent. Surviving jihadis, known as Ghazis (dedicated to Allah and to an ascetic life, somewhat like the fighting monks who battled in the Crusades), took abode in forts or fortified lines at the frontier posts called “ribae” (which we dis- cussed above), hoping that opportunities for martyrdom opera- tions, against infidel territories across the frontier, would arise. New volunteers secking martyrdom continued to be attracted to the relatively idle band of Ghazis. They continued to exist along the “ribat” in Andalusia (Spain) until the 14th century. The Ghazis, also known as Murabits (marabout in their Moroccan version, that was also discussed above), waited in those military recluses, ready (......) --ᘙ (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I can see some parts of these extracts and they look like an RS for "Muhammad Ali Khan" and I've partially confirmed some snippets from Google Books. What I've not comfortably established is that the Muhammad Ali Khan of that book (isbn:9781681819822), is the "M. A. Khan" in the Wikiquote article. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDeltac 23:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I also can't see the whole book, but I can see enough to be sure that this is the same MA Khan. On page 38 there is a citation to Mohammad Ali Khan and his book Islamic Jihad, he is then cited, quoted and discussed through pages 38-42, and his book Islamic Jihad: A legacy of forced conversion, imperialism and slavery is in the bibliography on page 341. --ᘙ (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The google book for (Israeli, 2017) for "Mohammad Ali" Links to (Khan, 2009, "Islamic Jihad" ...) on page 38 & 40, and searching for "Khan, M. A." finds the same book at P.341. As I a third thing I think I'd accept as an RS I'm changing to a "keep" above and accepting 3 RS as follows (not sure if enAfC would agree and enAfD might be knife-edge): -- DeirgeDeltac 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) Ibrahim, R. (2018). Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War Between Islam and the West. United States: Hachette Books. ISBN 9780306825569 is an RS as you suggest, albeit I'd hate to have to defend that at an enWP AfD. -- DeirgeDeltac 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (2) I've said from my point of view I'd accept (,2009) Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam (at politicalislam) -- DeirgeDeltac 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (3) Israeli, R. 2017, Itinerant Jihadis: Arab and Muslim War Volunteers. Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency ISBN 9781681819822 -- DeirgeDeltac 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete -- 2601:5c7:4100:3600:cfd:9886:ceda:ebb9 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 May 2023‎.
 * Comment: The creator has chosen to remove the notability tag. -- DeirgeDeltac 10:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag while adding links that show notability to the lead - which i believe is a common practice. The article has been at AFD now for months and having two templates (AFD and notability) I thought was unnecessary and was a layout problem for the casual reader especially on mobile phone who only see a list of templates on the first page - the AFD template already implied the concern of other template so there were two templates more or less about the same. --ᘙ (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's been many, if any, who have been as campaigning, perhaps on the odd occasion to aggressively, about the need to get deletion processes handled promptly. To be fair sysops here have this year tackled a long VfD list and got it relative fairly well under control and I continue to thank them for the volunteer time spent in doing that. Anyway the removal of the notability tag is a statement of fact.  To be fair I am more concerned about other contributions which has caused me to raise NPOV concern tag.  That details of that would normally be entered by me straight to the article talk page but that's previously been deleted due to an expired lack of notability PROD which is simply mor e pain.  : Can you restore the previous talk page Talk:M. A. Khan and place the PRODed article page (12:25, 30 August 2021 UDScott talk contribs deleted page M. A. Khan (Proposed deletion: Not sufficiently notable)) as of  incarnation as a subpage of the talk page - alternative restore both deleted incarnations a subpages of my user page. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDeltac 10:54, 28 May 2023 (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.