Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Burn! 00:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG#SIIEG might be deleted for additional examples of WikiProjects Striver had created along these lines that were deleted [addition: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild and Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy and subpages - 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. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Wikiprojects#Before you begin and Wikipedia: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 ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). 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)
    • Hoping to block users is some seriously bad and ugly form. --Irishpunktom\talk 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 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)
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 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. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 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 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 1m 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 Wikipedia. Maybe in the future they could be recreated when there's a need and more participants. --JuanMuslim 1m 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)

  • 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. Yahussain 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.--Zereshk 18:52, 15 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 Wikipedia: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 [who] 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" Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/User comments/Striver. It seems like all the Guilds are used to track AfDs and attack people (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.