Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 12 March 2006

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)
  • Hoping to block users is some seriously bad and ugly form. --Irishpunktom\ 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 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\ 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)