Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qrsdogg (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 25 July 2011 (→Fatimiya Sufi Order: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fatimiya Sufi Order

Fatimiya Sufi Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No secondary sources indicating notability. All statements are based on blogs or other self published sources. A search on Google for the term only shows other self-published sources. Jeff3000 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeep This is nonsense.

Reality Sandwich has run an article on the Fatimiya Sufi Order, here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773, there are two separate interviews run by independent outlets, here http://in-a-perfect-world.podomatic.com/entry/2010-01-04T17_21_24-08_00 and here http://radiohuasca.blogspot.com/2010/01/radiohuasca-12.html. This meets all the notability guidelines of[REDACTED] and as such the reason for nominating this article for deletion is purely motivated by sectarian reasons. --Fatimiya (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As such I disagree with the reasons for nomination and vote against this article being deleted. --Fatimiya (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Let's stay on topic, which is about Misplaced Pages standards for notability and reliable sources. Making comments about the editor (which by the way are all untrue) has no place on Misplaced Pages (see no personal attacks). The article is largely not referenced. The few references that it has are links to blogspot, which is a blogging website and is self-published, podomatic which is a site for users to create podcasts and is self-published, scribd, which is a website to upload self-published documents. The only link that has some editorial oversight is the realitysandwich one, but other than that there is no coverage anywhere on the web, in books, journals, etc, and notability states that "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear not to have even looked at the links given. There is only one single reference to a blogspot (which is in two parts) which links to the original upload of an interview conducted by a third party. The Reality Sandwich article is not a blogspot and that more than meets all standards of notability. The Podomatic link is also a third party. These interviews also exist on Youtube. I am happy to change the links from Podomatic and Blogspot to Youtube where the same interviews exist.

--Fatimiya (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please again, stay on topic, and refrain from personal comments. There is noting ideological here. The point is that virtually all the links above are all self-published (i.e. YouTube is self-published as well) and cannot be used to define notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Stay on topic yourself. The links are not self-published. They are published by third parties. Cite me the guideline that third party links to Podomatic or Blogspot cannot be linked. These are by third parties. The Radiohuasca blog belongs to the host of the show itself (DJ Zart). And please bring a non-Bahai administrator to adjudicate this, please. Your reasons for nomination are ideological. As a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce of[REDACTED] you maintain a long track-record on[REDACTED] of religious harassment and religious persecution of all individuals and groups whom the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong to deems to be ideological enemies. Your nomination is motivated and predicated by purely sectarian reasons, which negates any assumptions based on good faith given your track-record. Had there been any other editor but you, there wouldn't be an issue. That it is you, ipso facto demonstrates your nomination is ideological and originating in bad faith.

Again, I ask an independent administrator to adjudicate this issue --Fatimiya (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The following link http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/documents/Program_2008.pdf shows a lecture from 2008 at an academic conference given by a third party at the University of Queensland in Australia regarding the Fatimiya Sufi Order. --Fatimiya (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed to the relevent Misplaced Pages articles. Self-pubslished sources such as blogs, personal websites, etc are not considered reliables sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself. No personal websites have been included in the article. In fact I removed a personal website from this article placed in it by the article's original author. Nothing in the links you provided, however, say anything about the non-inclusion of third party references to a subject, or interviews linked from a third party source, because these are all open to inclusion as verifiable third party sources. There are no personal websites referenced in this article. There are no personal blogs referenced this article. Third party verifiable sources have been included only. There is a blog of a Radio program linking to an interview in two parts. The blog is of the host of the radio program and not a personal blog, but a program blog. There is another one linking to an interview in one part on Podomatic. I am happy to move these to external sources now. We still have two verifiable sources which is more than enough for an article this size. --Fatimiya (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeff3000-I presented the paper, referenced above, at the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of The Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland. You have so far not clearly demonstrated any reason why the interviews cited here, including the one at the Reality Sandwich site, do not constitute valid third-party reference material. Should you wish to make this a matter of further definition, I will gladly assist you. I should make you aware that the content of this article is currently the subject of academic investigation and discussion by numerous parties in Australia and overseas, myself included. We will be closely monitoring this discussion, as there is a definite issue arising regarding an apparent editorial bias on behalf of certain editors towards the material presented. I look forward to the appointment of an unequivocally third-party adjudicator on this issue. Dr. Samuel Burch. School of English, Media Studies and Art History, University of Queensland.Samuel.Brc (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

• Delete As lacking significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. I'm open to changing my !vote if there foreign language sources that my searching missed. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates