Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:48, 12 March 2006 editIrishpunktom (talk | contribs)9,733 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:20, 22 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(38 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''No Consensus'''. Delete 8, Keep 4. So, 66 per cent for deletion. ] <sup><small><b>]</b></small></sup> 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
====]==== ====]====
*'''Delete''', the page itself is just a long list of afds to articles created by the ] with the intention of getting people to vote keep on the afds. He did essentially the same thing by creating a Misplaced Pages Project called "Conspiracies Guild" which has since been deleted here by an almost unanimous concensus (]) with the only two keep votes being one from Striver himself and another "weak keep" from ]. <strike>Please also note that I am not asking for the entire Wikiproject to be deleted but rather just the talk page.</strike> Upon further review, yes considering that the own WP lists Striver as the only active member and the comments below I think that the entire WikiProject should be deleted.--] 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', the page itself is just a long list of afds to articles created by the ] with the intention of getting people to vote keep on the afds. He did essentially the same thing by creating a Misplaced Pages Project called "Conspiracies Guild" which has since been deleted here by an almost unanimous concensus (]) with the only two keep votes being one from Striver himself and another "weak keep" from ]. <strike>Please also note that I am not asking for the entire Wikiproject to be deleted but rather just the talk page.</strike> Upon further review, yes considering that the own WP lists Striver as the only active member and the comments below I think that the entire WikiProject should be deleted.--] 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' both the talk and main page of project. Mostly a bad faith effort to push a POV just as the other Project that was deleted (]) that was created by ]. I was taken aback by this on the talk page ''"I belive that to have the shia view accurately represented, we need to have the our pov of articles to be included. Starting with the major ones. Of course, our view of the major Sahaba is so incredibly different from the Sunni version, that it would dominate the article if it would be put in it, so we need to have a separate article for them. Not to mention that "some" get very upset at seeing the Shia view represented. at all. Anywhere. -Striver",'' and it appears since this project is no less than an attempt to promote solely the Shia POV of Islam, it is just a bad POV fork of it's parent project, the ]--] 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' both the talk and main page of project. Mostly a bad faith effort to push a POV just as the other Project that was deleted (]) that was created by ]. I was taken aback by this on the talk page ''"I belive that to have the shia view accurately represented, we need to have the our pov of articles to be included. Starting with the major ones. Of course, our view of the major Sahaba is so incredibly different from the Sunni version, that it would dominate the article if it would be put in it, so we need to have a separate article for them. Not to mention that "some" get very upset at seeing the Shia view represented. at all. Anywhere. -Striver",'' and it appears since this project is no less than an attempt to promote solely the Shia POV of Islam, it is just a bad POV fork of it's parent project, the ]--] 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' entirely. Do Shia deserve to be represented on WP? Certainly. Should there be articles about topics relating to Shia, and should they be factual and NPOV? Absolutely. However, this Project doesn’t cut it, doesn’t “deliver value.” In retrospect, I should have voted delete on the Conspiracies Guild as well. See ] for additional examples of WikiProjects Striver had created along these lines that were deleted. The project ''is'' Striver; he created it alone, and is its only active member—which is borne out not merely by the statement on the project page identifying him as such, but also by the history pages of the project. If Striver wants to keep people abreast of what he's doing he can do so on his user page. This is not a good use of WikiProjects as a productive way to make WP better. I say this as someone who’s recommended merge, weak keep, or keep on several of Striver’s articles on AfD (where many of his article go), and have made edits that saved at least two he created. I’ve tried to give him good advice, e.g. ]. *'''Delete''' entirely. Do Shia deserve to be represented on WP? Certainly. Should there be articles about topics relating to Shia, and should they be factual and NPOV? Absolutely. However, this Project doesn’t cut it, doesn’t “deliver value.” In retrospect, I should have voted delete on the Conspiracies Guild as well. See ] for additional examples of WikiProjects Striver had created along these lines that were deleted ] and ] - SZ 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)]. The project ''is'' Striver; he created it alone, and is its only active member—which is borne out not merely by the statement on the project page identifying him as such, but also by the history pages of the project. If Striver wants to keep people abreast of what he's doing he can do so on his user page. This is not a good use of WikiProjects as a productive way to make WP better. I say this as someone who’s recommended merge, weak keep, or keep on several of Striver’s articles on AfD (where many of his article go), and have made edits that saved at least two he created. I’ve tried to give him good advice, e.g. ].
:My patience, however, has been exhausted. A WikiProject should result in ] or even ], but since its creation in July 2005 it appears there has yet to be even a “Project Sample.” Instead there has been: ], ] and ]; ] by reverts mischaracterizing other people's edits as "vandalism"; ] characterizing topics as "famous"; far too many poorly-thought out and poorly-written stubs which remain stubs (or get stretched out uncomfortably to poorly-written skeletal outlines); and many articles about trivial subjects that would be better added as a section of an already existing article, if at all. Articles added have consistently bad spelling, perhaps due to the speed with which they’re added, and the way they are thereafter ignored. He and Guild member ] added a large number of ], giving them each their own article, and I fear it will continue. See ]. This, while the articles on hadith ''collections'' are stubs, or even sub-stubs! (see ] and related articles). There are ‘’several hundreds of thousands of individual hadith’’ that could possibly be added. By and large individual hadith should not have their own pages, but should be used on other pages to illustrate why certain Muslims believe certain things, e.g. ]. See ] where the best argument for keeping the "List of notable Muslim reports" page is that it keeps Striver AKA The Shia Guild busy in his ] world no user is likely to visit, that simply ] other sites’ content. Nothing has improved since ] except his English, and not by enough. I think he and his "Guild" should take the advice on his user page and leave WP to contribute to http://www.openislampedia.org/ which as a start-up might desperately appreciate even badly-written articles about Islamic minutia, though I suspect the "Guild" would soon exhaust their patience too. ] 10:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :My patience, however, has been exhausted. A WikiProject should result in ] or even ], but since its creation in July 2005 it appears there has yet to be even a “Project Sample.” Instead there has been: ], ] and ]; ] by reverts mischaracterizing other people's edits as "vandalism"; ] characterizing topics as "famous"; far too many poorly-thought out and poorly-written stubs which remain stubs (or get stretched out uncomfortably to poorly-written skeletal outlines); and many articles about trivial subjects that would be better added as a section of an already existing article, if at all. Articles added have consistently bad spelling, perhaps due to the speed with which they’re added, and the way they are thereafter ignored. He and Guild member ] added a large number of ], giving them each their own article, and I fear it will continue. See ]. This, while the articles on hadith ''collections'' are stubs, or even sub-stubs! (see ] and related articles). There are ‘’several hundreds of thousands of individual hadith’’ that could possibly be added. By and large individual hadith should not have their own pages, but should be used on other pages to illustrate why certain Muslims believe certain things, e.g. ]. See ] where the best argument for keeping the "List of notable Muslim reports" page is that it keeps Striver AKA The Shia Guild busy in his ] world no user is likely to visit, that simply ] other sites’ content. Nothing has improved since ] except his English, and not by enough. I think he and his "Guild" should take the advice on his user page and leave WP to contribute to http://www.openislampedia.org/ which as a start-up might desperately appreciate even badly-written articles about Islamic minutia, though I suspect the "Guild" would soon exhaust their patience too. ] 10:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' As for the accusations of specific articles, they are not even relevant to this afd. They have been defended on their own account, and there was no consencus to delete them, no matter who created them. Did you consider that there are 8 total "active members" on the Muslim guild, and that thay are 80% of the Muslims? How many active Shi'a do you expect, using casual math? Did you consider i created both guilds? Ill let the barnstars on my user page talk for themselves. --] 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' As for the accusations of specific articles, they are not even relevant to this afd. They have been defended on their own account, and there was no consencus to delete them, no matter who created them. Did you consider that there are 8 total "active members" on the Muslim guild, and that thay are 80% of the Muslims? How many active Shi'a do you expect, using casual math? Did you consider i created both guilds? Ill let the barnstars on my user page talk for themselves. --] 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I'm not saying that there should never be a Shia-related WP, but that this one was founded and maintained in objectionable ways that make its proposed deletion reasonable, and its actual deletion advisable. A WP should have higher ambitions than getting "no consensus" in an AfD for their articles, presumably shooting for articles that never go to AfD and rather (as I indicated above) potentially become good or featured articles. Shia and or non-shia interested in a WP would be better off to create a new one from scratch following ] and ]. There are millions of Shia, and presumably millions of non-Shia that are interested in Shia, so one would suppose such a group would be created at some point. As for your barnstars, two of them are from inactive members of your own guild; I don't know about the two others except to say that Barnstars are not indicative of ''consensus'' a person is doing good work. ] 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''', just so the Admin who closes this thread knows. Striver has been going out asking for votes again ( ). Hasn't this poster ] by now? How many other Wikipedians are allowed to get away with so many articles being voted majority delete in afds, Wikiprojects being voted unanimously (with this exception of self vote and weak keep which user now regrets) for deletion, and reverting edits falsely claiming "vandalism" in the page history. No one else is given this kind of leeway.--] 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''', just so the Admin who closes this thread knows. Striver has been going out asking for votes again ( ). Hasn't this poster ] by now? How many other Wikipedians are allowed to get away with so many articles being voted majority delete in afds, Wikiprojects being voted unanimously (with this exception of self vote and weak keep which user now regrets) for deletion, and reverting edits falsely claiming "vandalism" in the page history. No one else is given this kind of leeway.--] 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
** Hoping to block users is some seriously bad and ugly form. --]\<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ** Hoping to block users is some seriously bad and ugly form. --]\<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


::Here we go again, the usual accusations. Is there a problem with asking people to vote, not even implying what they should vote? Those people are intrested in this afd's, they more or less want to know about this afd's. Have any of them complained? May i ask, have'nt YOU ] yet? You keep stalking me and afd things you dont even know anyting about, claiming ] and ] as being "questionable sources". Stop stalking me and wasting other wikipedians time on random afd's. --] 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ::Here we go again, the usual accusations. Is there a problem with asking people to vote, not even implying what they should vote? Those people are intrested in this afd's, they more or less want to know about this afd's. Have any of them complained? May i ask, have'nt YOU ] yet? You keep stalking me and afd things you dont even know anyting about, claiming ] and ] as being "questionable sources". Stop stalking me and wasting other wikipedians time on random afd's. --] 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' Striver probably didn't do anything wrong by notifying Yahussain, Paradoxic, Zereshk, Ya_Ali, and Khalid since they are all listed as less active members of his guild. However, the fact that it was thought necessary to do so (i.e. that they would not see the AfD themselves by visiting the Guild discussion page, and that they must not have the Guild on their watch list) is perhaps indicative of just ''how inactive'' they are. The two redlinked less active users were evidently not paged about this MfD. ] is not a member of the project, so I am not sure why he was alerted. Characterizing awareness of calling for input as stalking is not reasonable. Jersey Devil is not wasting people's time with the AfDs, rather the Guild has been wasting people's time by creating articles for which deletion proposals are reasonable. Characterizing the two Sahihs as "questionable" ''would'' be inappropriate in that they are ''quite valid sources'' to use in articles about Islam, except they could be considered questionable depending upon the specific division within Islam, or from a liberal muslim or non-muslim perspective as to their actual historicity. ] 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''. Another in a long list of relentless POV instruments and efforts.--] 14:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC) * '''Delete'''. Another in a long list of relentless POV instruments and efforts.--] 14:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', and I feel bad voting this way despite the above comments, because I think ] feels very strongly about his contributions on Shi'a related articles. I've liked some of his contributions a great deal (one example, unrelated to this was ] who teaches in my hometown). But, the straw that broke it for me was the talk page. Negatively commenting on other users edits in a systemic fashion on Wikiprojects -- even if you believe them to be unfair -- unfortunately undermines the legitimacy of the project. Makes it seem like you're a WikiGang. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">] </font>]<font face="Arial Narrow" color="#000000"> <small> ]</small></font> 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''', and I feel bad voting this way despite the above comments, because I think ] feels very strongly about his contributions on Shi'a related articles. I've liked some of his contributions a great deal (one example, unrelated to this was ] who teaches in my hometown). But, the straw that broke it for me was the talk page. Negatively commenting on other users edits in a systemic fashion on Wikiprojects -- even if you believe them to be unfair -- unfortunately undermines the legitimacy of the project. Makes it seem like you're a WikiGang. -- ] ] ] 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
::Isnt it a bit harsh to delete the entire project based on that? Did you take a look at the Muslim guild, they are magnitudes more harsh on the same section, ] going so far as calling me deluded and implying i should be hospitalized. Why not delete that guild on the same reasoning? Could'nt you just removed the alledged improper text from the guild? Remeber, its not mine, its for all Shi'a, you are not "ruining" for me, but for all other Shi'a that have signed and spent time there. Ill remove what you considered objectionable and hope you see i didnt create the guild to gang up on Zora, the only one having comments on her on that section, but to improve and coordinate the Shi'a articles. --] 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC) ::Isnt it a bit harsh to delete the entire project based on that? Did you take a look at the Muslim guild, they are magnitudes more harsh on the same section, ] going so far as calling me deluded and implying i should be hospitalized. Why not delete that guild on the same reasoning? Could'nt you just removed the alledged improper text from the guild? Remeber, its not mine, its for all Shi'a, you are not "ruining" for me, but for all other Shi'a that have signed and spent time there. Ill remove what you considered objectionable and hope you see i didnt create the guild to gang up on Zora, the only one having comments on her on that section, but to improve and coordinate the Shi'a articles. --] 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
:::Thank you for removing it. I appreciate your responsiveness to comments. -- <font color="black" face="Arial">] </font>]<font face="Arial Narrow" color="#000000"> <small> ]</small></font> 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :::Thank you for removing it. I appreciate your responsiveness to comments. -- ] ] ] 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - Unless there are sub-Guilds, and if so, Merge this to become a Sub-Guild of the Muslim one. --]\<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep''' - Unless there are sub-Guilds, and if so, Merge this to become a Sub-Guild of the Muslim one. --]\<sup>]</sup> 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above --] | ] 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I am not aware of the activities of this guild, but I think the accusations by themselves are not a good enough reason to delete the project itself. The basic idea of the project is fine, so it should stay. We do have religion subprojects, like ], ], ], etc. where people assemble and discuss things according to their religous point of view. Maybe some guidelines should be developed regarding ''what wikiprojects are not'', so that misuse does not occur, but we can't start deleting projects like this. ] (]) 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' - as long as the same fate goes for the Sunni guild I'm not sure I care whether it stays or goes. ] ] 10:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' The Sunni Guild could probably be deleted without controversy since this message appears there "All discussion about particular articles will be held at The Muslim Guild." Would a MfD even be necessary to delete that? ] 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'd like to see both the Shia and Sunni Guilds deleted. No one is really contributing through either subguild. We do all our work on The Muslim Guild. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
::Maybe if the Shia and Sunni Guilds were used more often I'd be more reluctant to see them go. They really don't contribute much to Misplaced Pages. Maybe in the future they could be recreated when there's a need and more participants. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! its used plenty, what do you mean? Even if it used 1/4 as the Muslim guild, it would be ''more'' than its share of adherants would sugest. --] 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

::: '''Comment regarding lack of activity:''' Inactive projects are generally marked with {{]}} rather than deleted. ] (]) 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' Noted, I tagged it inactive. I note that there had been prior AfDs on both of these groups which resulted in No Consensus. I added the links to the talk pages. ] 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

] --] 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I think Shias deserve to have a project for themselves, even if some of them (like myself) who are "active members" don't contribute that much. ] 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. Ah yes. Another attempt to silence the Shia. Bombing and slaughtering the Shia isnt enough for these people.--] 18:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' It is not an attempt to silence the Shia, please refrain from that persecution complex and do actually read the above discussion. I note you played the same card the last time this group was listed ] even though the nominator had also listed ] at the same time. Accusing "these people," the people proposing deletion, of bombing and slaughtering the Shia is not only inflammatory bigoted hyperbole but patently absurd. ] 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC) See also - that's just not appropriate. ] 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:::What's "not appropriate" is people using WP as a platform for furthering their personal beliefs against Shias. How exactly do you expect me to react when the reason given for this deletion proposal is that "Striver is the only active user"? Is that even a reason? If it is, then please do be consistent and delete the ] as well since theyve only had one edit since Feb 28. Otherwise, spare me the sophistry polemics. We're trying to stop Shia pages from being deleted on an almost daily basis, for crying out loud.--] 08:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' I expect you not to accuse people proposing deletions of being in your words ''"'''fuckers''' wont give it a rest until theyve eliminated all traces of the Shia"'' and of ''"Bombing and slaughtering the Shia"'' (emphasis added). That's not "sophistry polemics." I ''would'' like to see good articles on WP regarding all topics, ''including Shia''. I am quite appalled by bombings and slaughter as any reasonable human being would be. The reason for the AfD on The Shia Guild is not your ] "Striver is the only active user"; again, please actually read the discussion above. If WikiProject Judaism has the same problems this Wikiproject has, then that needs to be looked at; it is not a defense for keeping this one. Concentrate on making existing Shia articles better and contributing new ones that do not fall afoul of WP policies. That's something this Guild should have been doing, but clearly never did. ] 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::Please excuse him being upset. The arguemnts i have seen for deleting this article inclue:
:::::*'''This is a pov fork. ''' That was disproved by deeptrivia
:::::*'''Only i create this''' as is evident from this afd, the project page and talk page, this is not the case.
:::::*'''I create this since i couldnt do this in the Muslim guild''' I create both guild more or less at the same time.
::::What other arguements are there to detele this? We need this article to coordinate the efforts to improve the Shi'a articles. Is that bad?--] 13:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::'''Comment''' I don't really see any evidence there that it has been used to "coordinate the efforts to improve the Shi'a articles." It's basically you posting the articles you've created, and keeping track of who AfDs your articles. A lot of them are ]s; I'm glad you hadn't gotten around to ] which you said "Obviosly, it needs to be created" — why ], a ] would "obviously" require a breakout article, I can't imagine. There's room for the Shia view in it. Although, the impression all these "Shia view" articles or subsections creates is that it's a group based on hatred of others; you might want to think about that. Regarding coordinating, you didn't follow the advice of your collaborators in the Muslim Guild, about slowing down the creation of new articles for example and "working collaboratively and harmoniously with other editors" ]. It seems like all the Guilds are used to track AfDs and attack people (] for example which calls ] "really not a Buddhist" but rather a "Jewish" "Zionist" who likes "Gook" sources). Good grief! ] 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
::::::Could you please tell we wich ones are "POV forks"? I havent created any ], but Shi'a have '''lots''' to say about that book. In fact, if everything would be said, it would unbalance the main article, just like ] would unbalance the main article. But i havent had time to get to that. Regarding "it's a group based on hatred of others", i havent heard any such complains from Shi'a editor, so i would guess that the articles are just fine. We dont like Umar. We dont Like Abu Bakr. Does that make us a "group based on hatred of others"? What would you say about Jews then? They dont like Hitler. They dont like Joseph Goebbels. Does that also make the Jews "a group based on hatred of others"? No of course not, they are my brothers in humanity and monotheis, they have every reason for not liking them. No i didnt follow the advice to creat less article. I see the need of a article, and i creat it as a stub. There happen to be many articles that need to be created in the field i work. And since im the most active Shi'a editor, it happens that i creat most of them. Further, dont bring up things that are irrelevant to '''this''' afd, such as '''other''' peole calling Zora things. I have never stated that she is a jew, zionist or whaderev. I have a big issue with Zora, and i wanted to document other people that have issues with her. As you can see, shes not to friendly with me either, she has stated that i have several different kinds of mental dissorders. But in any case, none of that is relevant to '''this''' guild, you are talking about '''another''' guild. Try to give reasons to delete '''this''' guild. As you can see from the talk page of the guild, several other editors are involved wich clearly shows that the guild serves the purpose of coordinating editors of Shi'a articles. And there are even more people that consider themselves mebers of the guild--] 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
:::::::'''Comment''' I didn't say the Shi'a ''are'' a group based on the hatred of others, I said you're giving that ''impression''. I'm quite sure I've seen you criticized for putting Shi'a in a bad light before, I'll try to find it, though I think your pages speak for themselves. (As for Judaism, it's not a good analogy since I'm fairly sure Hitler and Goebbels weren't around the time Judaism began, and that they're not mentioned in any Jewish holy texts, and that Jewish people don't add "Jewish view of..." to every article having to do with Nazism.) Criticism of your POV and Content forks is all over the place, for example in the ] page I already mentioned. Zereshk attacking people is relevant since he did it in your Muslim Guild which you created at the same time and with essentially the same constitution as this Guild, and he is a member of this Shia Guild and he posted above, attacking people. It speaks to a pattern of what happens in your Guilds and the sort of conduct the members tend to engage in. Finding posts in which ''you'' use the slur "gook" (that the context is "NOT a biased and obsolet gook" doesn't help much) ] or show apparant bias against Judaism: e.g. citing to the "Jews asked for it" ] isn't that difficult. I realize Zora hasn't been consistently friendly toward you in the past, and has at times been quite unkind (hence the RfC against her that you'd threatened ] ] but evidently never carried out ]) - but that does not excuse your behavior or that of your fellow WikiProject members. WikiProjects should be a collaborative effort, but this one (as with your past deleted WikiProjects) is pretty much all about you and keeping track of editors you don't like, which is redundantly posted all over the place, e.g. ], ], the above Muslim Group user-specific pages, the past talk pages for your WikiProjects. Further, there's no discussions being conducted as to the best way to proceed on things, and when other editors give their input (e.g. in the Muslim Guild group) you disregard them and forge on ahead alone against their advice. The participation of other editors in the Shia Guild appears to have been quite minimal, and I see no evidence this group "serves the purpose of coordinating editors of Shi'a articles." ] 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Basicly, he said "keep, i like this guild, im a part of it and whant to remain so". However, he was a bit angry about the bombing, although its not really related to this afd.--] 02:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 10:20, 22 March 2022

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Delete 8, Keep 4. So, 66 per cent for deletion. Ëvilphoenix 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

  • Delete, the page itself is just a long list of afds to articles created by the User:Striver with the intention of getting people to vote keep on the afds. He did essentially the same thing by creating a Misplaced Pages Project called "Conspiracies Guild" which has since been deleted here by an almost unanimous concensus (See here for previous deletion) with the only two keep votes being one from Striver himself and another "weak keep" from User:Schizombie. Please also note that I am not asking for the entire Wikiproject to be deleted but rather just the talk page. Upon further review, yes considering that the own WP lists Striver as the only active member and the comments below I think that the entire WikiProject should be deleted.--Jersey Devil 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both the talk and main page of project. Mostly a bad faith effort to push a POV just as the other Project that was deleted (Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild) that was created by Striver. I was taken aback by this on the talk page "I belive that to have the shia view accurately represented, we need to have the our pov of articles to be included. Starting with the major ones. Of course, our view of the major Sahaba is so incredibly different from the Sunni version, that it would dominate the article if it would be put in it, so we need to have a separate article for them. Not to mention that "some" get very upset at seeing the Shia view represented. at all. Anywhere. -Striver", and it appears since this project is no less than an attempt to promote solely the Shia POV of Islam, it is just a bad POV fork of it's parent project, the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild--MONGO 09:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely. Do Shia deserve to be represented on WP? Certainly. Should there be articles about topics relating to Shia, and should they be factual and NPOV? Absolutely. However, this Project doesn’t cut it, doesn’t “deliver value.” In retrospect, I should have voted delete on the Conspiracies Guild as well. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG#SIIEG might be deleted for additional examples of WikiProjects Striver had created along these lines that were deleted . The project is Striver; he created it alone, and is its only active member—which is borne out not merely by the statement on the project page identifying him as such, but also by the history pages of the project. If Striver wants to keep people abreast of what he's doing he can do so on his user page. This is not a good use of WikiProjects as a productive way to make WP better. I say this as someone who’s recommended merge, weak keep, or keep on several of Striver’s articles on AfD (where many of his article go), and have made edits that saved at least two he created. I’ve tried to give him good advice, e.g. User talk:Striver#New articles.
My patience, however, has been exhausted. A WikiProject should result in good articles or even featured articles, but since its creation in July 2005 it appears there has yet to be even a “Project Sample.” Instead there has been: POV pushing, content forks and bad ideas for articles; WP:OWN by reverts mischaracterizing other people's edits as "vandalism"; peacock terms characterizing topics as "famous"; far too many poorly-thought out and poorly-written stubs which remain stubs (or get stretched out uncomfortably to poorly-written skeletal outlines); and many articles about trivial subjects that would be better added as a section of an already existing article, if at all. Articles added have consistently bad spelling, perhaps due to the speed with which they’re added, and the way they are thereafter ignored. He and Guild member Zereshk added a large number of hadith, giving them each their own article, and I fear it will continue. See List of notable Muslim reports. This, while the articles on hadith collections are stubs, or even sub-stubs! (see Six major Hadith collections and related articles). There are ‘’several hundreds of thousands of individual hadith’’ that could possibly be added. By and large individual hadith should not have their own pages, but should be used on other pages to illustrate why certain Muslims believe certain things, e.g. Aniconism#Hadith and exegesis examples. See User talk:Schizombie#List of notable Muslim reports - or whatever it.27s called where the best argument for keeping the "List of notable Muslim reports" page is that it keeps Striver AKA The Shia Guild busy in his WP:OWN world no user is likely to visit, that simply mirrors other sites’ content. Nothing has improved since Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Striver except his English, and not by enough. I think he and his "Guild" should take the advice on his user page and leave WP to contribute to http://www.openislampedia.org/ which as a start-up might desperately appreciate even badly-written articles about Islamic minutia, though I suspect the "Guild" would soon exhaust their patience too. Schizombie 10:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As for the accusations of specific articles, they are not even relevant to this afd. They have been defended on their own account, and there was no consencus to delete them, no matter who created them. Did you consider that there are 8 total "active members" on the Muslim guild, and that thay are 80% of the Muslims? How many active Shi'a do you expect, using casual math? Did you consider i created both guilds? Ill let the barnstars on my user page talk for themselves. --Striver 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm not saying that there should never be a Shia-related WP, but that this one was founded and maintained in objectionable ways that make its proposed deletion reasonable, and its actual deletion advisable. A WP should have higher ambitions than getting "no consensus" in an AfD for their articles, presumably shooting for articles that never go to AfD and rather (as I indicated above) potentially become good or featured articles. Shia and or non-shia interested in a WP would be better off to create a new one from scratch following Misplaced Pages:Wikiprojects#Before you begin and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject/Best practices. There are millions of Shia, and presumably millions of non-Shia that are interested in Shia, so one would suppose such a group would be created at some point. As for your barnstars, two of them are from inactive members of your own guild; I don't know about the two others except to say that Barnstars are not indicative of consensus a person is doing good work. Schizombie 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, just so the Admin who closes this thread knows. Striver has been going out asking for votes again ( ). Hasn't this poster exhausted the community's patience by now? How many other Wikipedians are allowed to get away with so many articles being voted majority delete in afds, Wikiprojects being voted unanimously (with this exception of self vote and weak keep which user now regrets) for deletion, and reverting edits falsely claiming "vandalism" in the page history. No one else is given this kind of leeway.--Jersey Devil 12:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again, the usual accusations. Is there a problem with asking people to vote, not even implying what they should vote? Those people are intrested in this afd's, they more or less want to know about this afd's. Have any of them complained? May i ask, have'nt YOU exhausted the community's patience yet? You keep stalking me and afd things you dont even know anyting about, claiming Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari as being "questionable sources". Stop stalking me and wasting other wikipedians time on random afd's. --Striver 12:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Striver probably didn't do anything wrong by notifying Yahussain, Paradoxic, Zereshk, Ya_Ali, and Khalid since they are all listed as less active members of his guild. However, the fact that it was thought necessary to do so (i.e. that they would not see the AfD themselves by visiting the Guild discussion page, and that they must not have the Guild on their watch list) is perhaps indicative of just how inactive they are. The two redlinked less active users were evidently not paged about this MfD. User:JuanMuslim/Wikipedia Boycott Campaign is not a member of the project, so I am not sure why he was alerted. Characterizing awareness of calling for input as stalking is not reasonable. Jersey Devil is not wasting people's time with the AfDs, rather the Guild has been wasting people's time by creating articles for which deletion proposals are reasonable. Characterizing the two Sahihs as "questionable" would be inappropriate in that they are quite valid sources to use in articles about Islam, except they could be considered questionable depending upon the specific division within Islam, or from a liberal muslim or non-muslim perspective as to their actual historicity. Schizombie 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another in a long list of relentless POV instruments and efforts.--AladdinSE 14:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I feel bad voting this way despite the above comments, because I think Striver feels very strongly about his contributions on Shi'a related articles. I've liked some of his contributions a great deal (one example, unrelated to this was Barrie Zwicker who teaches in my hometown). But, the straw that broke it for me was the talk page. Negatively commenting on other users edits in a systemic fashion on Wikiprojects -- even if you believe them to be unfair -- unfortunately undermines the legitimacy of the project. Makes it seem like you're a WikiGang. -- Samir (the scope) 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Isnt it a bit harsh to delete the entire project based on that? Did you take a look at the Muslim guild, they are magnitudes more harsh on the same section, User:Zora going so far as calling me deluded and implying i should be hospitalized. Why not delete that guild on the same reasoning? Could'nt you just removed the alledged improper text from the guild? Remeber, its not mine, its for all Shi'a, you are not "ruining" for me, but for all other Shi'a that have signed and spent time there. Ill remove what you considered objectionable and hope you see i didnt create the guild to gang up on Zora, the only one having comments on her on that section, but to improve and coordinate the Shi'a articles. --Striver 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for removing it. I appreciate your responsiveness to comments. -- Samir (the scope) 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not aware of the activities of this guild, but I think the accusations by themselves are not a good enough reason to delete the project itself. The basic idea of the project is fine, so it should stay. We do have religion subprojects, like Catholicism, Latter Day Saint movement, Seventh-day Adventist, etc. where people assemble and discuss things according to their religous point of view. Maybe some guidelines should be developed regarding what wikiprojects are not, so that misuse does not occur, but we can't start deleting projects like this. deeptrivia (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - as long as the same fate goes for the Sunni guild I'm not sure I care whether it stays or goes. gren グレン 10:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The Sunni Guild could probably be deleted without controversy since this message appears there "All discussion about particular articles will be held at The Muslim Guild." Would a MfD even be necessary to delete that? Schizombie 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd like to see both the Shia and Sunni Guilds deleted. No one is really contributing through either subguild. We do all our work on The Muslim Guild. --JuanMuslim 22:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if the Shia and Sunni Guilds were used more often I'd be more reluctant to see them go. They really don't contribute much to Misplaced Pages. Maybe in the future they could be recreated when there's a need and more participants. --JuanMuslim 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! its used plenty, what do you mean? Even if it used 1/4 as the Muslim guild, it would be more than its share of adherants would sugest. --Striver 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding lack of activity: Inactive projects are generally marked with {{inactive}} rather than deleted. deeptrivia (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Noted, I tagged it inactive. I note that there had been prior AfDs on both of these groups which resulted in No Consensus. I added the links to the talk pages. Schizombie 20:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No i dont do that only to protect my articles from afd's... --Striver 02:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What's "not appropriate" is people using WP as a platform for furthering their personal beliefs against Shias. How exactly do you expect me to react when the reason given for this deletion proposal is that "Striver is the only active user"? Is that even a reason? If it is, then please do be consistent and delete the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism as well since theyve only had one edit since Feb 28. Otherwise, spare me the sophistry polemics. We're trying to stop Shia pages from being deleted on an almost daily basis, for crying out loud.--Zereshk 08:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I expect you not to accuse people proposing deletions of being in your words "fuckers wont give it a rest until theyve eliminated all traces of the Shia" and of "Bombing and slaughtering the Shia" (emphasis added). That's not "sophistry polemics." I would like to see good articles on WP regarding all topics, including Shia. I am quite appalled by bombings and slaughter as any reasonable human being would be. The reason for the AfD on The Shia Guild is not your straw man "Striver is the only active user"; again, please actually read the discussion above. If WikiProject Judaism has the same problems this Wikiproject has, then that needs to be looked at; it is not a defense for keeping this one. Concentrate on making existing Shia articles better and contributing new ones that do not fall afoul of WP policies. That's something this Guild should have been doing, but clearly never did. Esquizombi 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Please excuse him being upset. The arguemnts i have seen for deleting this article inclue:
  • This is a pov fork. That was disproved by deeptrivia
  • Only i create this as is evident from this afd, the project page and talk page, this is not the case.
  • I create this since i couldnt do this in the Muslim guild I create both guild more or less at the same time.
What other arguements are there to detele this? We need this article to coordinate the efforts to improve the Shi'a articles. Is that bad?--Striver 13:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't really see any evidence there that it has been used to "coordinate the efforts to improve the Shi'a articles." It's basically you posting the articles you've created, and keeping track of who AfDs your articles. A lot of them are WP:POVFORKs; I'm glad you hadn't gotten around to Shia view of Sahih Bukhari which you said "Obviosly, it needs to be created" — why Sahih Bukhari, a WP:STUB would "obviously" require a breakout article, I can't imagine. There's room for the Shia view in it. Although, the impression all these "Shia view" articles or subsections creates is that it's a group based on hatred of others; you might want to think about that. Regarding coordinating, you didn't follow the advice of your collaborators in the Muslim Guild, about slowing down the creation of new articles for example and "working collaboratively and harmoniously with other editors" Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver. It seems like all the Guilds are used to track AfDs and attack people (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Zora for example which calls Zora "really not a Buddhist" but rather a "Jewish" "Zionist" who likes "Gook" sources). Good grief! Esquizombi 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you please tell we wich ones are "POV forks"? I havent created any Shia view of Sahih Bukhari, but Shi'a have lots to say about that book. In fact, if everything would be said, it would unbalance the main article, just like Shi'a view of Umar would unbalance the main article. But i havent had time to get to that. Regarding "it's a group based on hatred of others", i havent heard any such complains from Shi'a editor, so i would guess that the articles are just fine. We dont like Umar. We dont Like Abu Bakr. Does that make us a "group based on hatred of others"? What would you say about Jews then? They dont like Hitler. They dont like Joseph Goebbels. Does that also make the Jews "a group based on hatred of others"? No of course not, they are my brothers in humanity and monotheis, they have every reason for not liking them. No i didnt follow the advice to creat less article. I see the need of a article, and i creat it as a stub. There happen to be many articles that need to be created in the field i work. And since im the most active Shi'a editor, it happens that i creat most of them. Further, dont bring up things that are irrelevant to this afd, such as other peole calling Zora things. I have never stated that she is a jew, zionist or whaderev. I have a big issue with Zora, and i wanted to document other people that have issues with her. As you can see, shes not to friendly with me either, she has stated that i have several different kinds of mental dissorders. But in any case, none of that is relevant to this guild, you are talking about another guild. Try to give reasons to delete this guild. As you can see from the talk page of the guild, several other editors are involved wich clearly shows that the guild serves the purpose of coordinating editors of Shi'a articles. And there are even more people that consider themselves mebers of the guild--Striver 16:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment I didn't say the Shi'a are a group based on the hatred of others, I said you're giving that impression. I'm quite sure I've seen you criticized for putting Shi'a in a bad light before, I'll try to find it, though I think your pages speak for themselves. (As for Judaism, it's not a good analogy since I'm fairly sure Hitler and Goebbels weren't around the time Judaism began, and that they're not mentioned in any Jewish holy texts, and that Jewish people don't add "Jewish view of..." to every article having to do with Nazism.) Criticism of your POV and Content forks is all over the place, for example in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver page I already mentioned. Zereshk attacking people is relevant since he did it in your Muslim Guild which you created at the same time and with essentially the same constitution as this Guild, and he is a member of this Shia Guild and he posted above, attacking people. It speaks to a pattern of what happens in your Guilds and the sort of conduct the members tend to engage in. Finding posts in which you use the slur "gook" (that the context is "NOT a biased and obsolet gook" doesn't help much) Talk:Umar/Archive4#Zora uses dirty tricks or show apparant bias against Judaism: e.g. citing to the "Jews asked for it" Talk:Banu_Qurayza#Copyediting.2C_Saffiya_bint_Huyyay isn't that difficult. I realize Zora hasn't been consistently friendly toward you in the past, and has at times been quite unkind (hence the RfC against her that you'd threatened Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Zora#Loosing temper User talk:Khalid!#Salam but evidently never carried out User:Striver/x) - but that does not excuse your behavior or that of your fellow WikiProject members. WikiProjects should be a collaborative effort, but this one (as with your past deleted WikiProjects) is pretty much all about you and keeping track of editors you don't like, which is redundantly posted all over the place, e.g. User:Striver/notes, User talk:Striver#notes, the above Muslim Group user-specific pages, the past talk pages for your WikiProjects. Further, there's no discussions being conducted as to the best way to proceed on things, and when other editors give their input (e.g. in the Muslim Guild group) you disregard them and forge on ahead alone against their advice. The participation of other editors in the Shia Guild appears to have been quite minimal, and I see no evidence this group "serves the purpose of coordinating editors of Shi'a articles." Esquizombi 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Basicly, he said "keep, i like this guild, im a part of it and whant to remain so". However, he was a bit angry about the bombing, although its not really related to this afd.--Striver 02:10, 16 March 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild: Difference between revisions Add topic