- Tauheediyah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deletion discussion period was of summer break in Pakistan where there are majority of relevant people to the person discussed in this page. Consensus in terms of votes is not justified. Spiritual chain discussed in this page is notable subject as is in criteria explained on WP:GNG. I want to say this deletion is done purely on voting not on logical grounds. As, the page is in accordance to WP:V of its sources, It is not problematic under WP:NOR recommendations. Additionally there are nothing to be considered as objectionable in view of WP:C. Write up is also satisfactory to WP:NPOV. Page under review has no issues related to WP:AB, WP:SELFPROMOTE. There is no violations of WP:SELFCITE provisions if there are some cases. Contribution was done as WP:CURATOR and is part of WP:COIU. Spiritual chain satisfies WP:GNG and is in accordance to WP:SIGCOV in Urdu due to its unique ideology in spirituality. Many authors have published considerable material in research and literature on Islamic mysticism and spirituality. If this deletion is merely due to WP:SOCK that can be negligible as mistake because previously many legitimate edits have been done while not logged in on WP. If it is the reason then me as editor am accountable. My edits and created few pages have contents independent to my logged in or logged out status. All edits are legitimate to WP policies and guidelines. If any of my edited page need refinement then it should be done in collaborative way rather than deletion. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was the closing administrator on the AFD debate. Syed raised my deletion with me on my talk page, a discussion you can view here. I stand by my decision to close in this way, but I did direct Syed to the deletion review process as is his right. I will not make any additional comment as I do not want to unduly influence this discussion. KaisaL (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have fixed the XFD link which was to the wrong debate. KaisaL (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The delete !voters at the AfD actually had policy based reasons for their decisions. The only people to !vote keep were the author and a random IP. Both of which have included no policy based reasoning behind their !vote. Good close. Good delete. --Majora (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC):[reply]
- Overturn I have read books criticizing Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari. In my opinion these pages should be on Wikipedia without any personal likings and dislikings. These are well known in the world in their last fifty years history . 188.53.131.47 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn why this pages has been deleted, totally surprized to see this on Wikipedia as these contents are not harmful or criticizing to anyone and according to Wikipedia policies. I read them now. Abdul Hakim Ansari is very famous & nobel sufi saint among Muslims. He was Naqshbandi and then started new Sufism order. He named it Tauheediyah or Toheedia. It should be reopened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.251.170.219 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Good close based on policy based deletion rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - I'm seeing no policy-based reason to Keep nor am I seeing any WP:Reliable sources in the AFD, However I am seeing policy-based reasons to delete and a fuckton of IPs above closely related to the subject wanting it kept, So far there's been no valid reason for keeping. Endorse. –Davey2010Talk 23:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think this was closed properly. The AfD was listed for an adequate amount of time and the keep votes did not present any sources or evidence. I also strongly suspect the 2 keep votes were actually meatpuppets. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Deletion review is a place where failures to follow the deletion process correctly are identified and resolved. It is not a place to get a second opinion if the debate didn't go your way. Particularly, we are unable to entertain an argument that the AFD was made at an unsuitable time; with over 5m articles it is inevitable that not every deletion discussion will be made at a time deemed suitable by whatever criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn I think pages of Abdul Hakim Ansari and his ideology Tauheediyah should be on Wikipedia. I become familiar to them during my MPhil thesis. Famous scholars have focused on Abdul Hakim Ansari and his given ideology named Tauheediyah. That are good inline to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For instance; ‘’’ شریعت و طریقت(Shariat o Tareeqat) by عبدالرحمان کیلانی (Abdul Rehman Relaani)’’’, published 2006, pages 530. ‘’’ishan-e-manzil: sign-post of salvation by Abdullatif Khan Naqshbandi’’’, published 2002, pages 264. ‘’’Striving for divine union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis by Qamar-ul Huda’’’ published 2005. ‘’’Abdul Hakim Ansari by Russell Jesse’’’. Book by Abdul Hakim Ansari of title ‘’’ حقیقت وحدت الوجود (Haqeeqat Wahdat ul Wajood)’’’ is included on recommended books list of masters programme ‘’Religious studies’’. 203.124.30.64 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_July_3&action=edit§ion=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ≈43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I am not editor and know little editing on wikipedia. I read articles about spirituality. Many pages are good written there about saints and their way of practice (sainthood). These pages have very different views that are pretty hard to accept for many muslims. I think source like encyclopedias cover all that exist in world and under their coverage. - 43.245.11.16 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Page ‘’’Tauheediyah ‘’’ is according to WP guidelines and policies and i say it should be restored. 43.245.9.63 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The deletion process appears to have been properly applied here. The IPs recommending to overturn have not provided any policy-based reason to justify a reversal of the deletion. --Kinu t/c 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn but rewrite No proper arguments were presented on either side. We normally do cover all religious movements for which there is some evidence of real existence, and this seems to be one. There appears to be at least one colony of followers, based on their photo on their facebook page. We have accepted even very small movements. I cannot tell the size of this one, as I can find no information on current membership or if thee is more than the one location--but it might be in the sources, which I cannot read. That there are no third party sources does not matter--we have very frequently accepted articles on religion without them, basically on the grounds that they are good authorities for their own leadership and beliefs. The lack of English sources is irrelevant. The article is promotional, but a brief description would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse No real convincing policy based arguments were made by those seeking to support to mitigate the policy based concerns brought up by those seeking deletion. If someone can write an article that is up to the inclusions standards of the project I suggest they start in draft space. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I still stand by my delete !vote. Also, DGG's "That there are no third party sources does not matter" goes straight against WP:GNG's "sources independent of the subject". Third party sources are needed to at least establish notability. Once that is done, primary sources can be considered to expand the actual content, although secondary/tertiary sources are preferable. We have this criterion to prevent things like self-promo of groups that may just as well have been made up one day. PS: the overturns are rather meaty. - HyperGaruda (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. It is well accepted in literature on ‘theory of science’ that person presenting idea should be credited accordingly. Ideological bases of Tauheediyah are quite strong and interestingly controversial but less protested. For instance, It is important aspect of muslims belief that nobody can see their God, Hell, Paradize, etc. in this life. These topics are sensitive enough to discuss in muslim community. Muhammad Hanif Khan, an unknown person (very little published about his life), initiated this idea and few other similar but hard to believe ideas. His followers such as Abdul Hakim Ansari introduced Sufism and named it Tauheediyah. Ansari became the first in the history of muslim spirituality who presented his complete spiritual syllabus in writings. Ansari wrote books on Khan’s ideas and cited his name. Admittedly, these ideas were never introduced in general public before Ansari. Onward literature also published that supported as well as criticized Khan’s ideas while citing books written by Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spirituality. Who and what is notable? Ideas? Initiator of ideas? Presenter of idea in his books? or the ideology of ideas that is tauheediyah? Followers of tauheediyah are known accepted community in general public due to their different ideas and philosophies. Followers are not unknown if not very famous.
Regarding publishing independent sources, all subjects have their specific publishing trends. Spiritual biographical literature in past was mostly published after hundreds years of persons death. We hardly see any example of independent biography of saints in Pakistan. Can anybody cite single example? This literature is mostly narrative and not acceptable on research parameters. I have also looked into other citations on many articles of muslim saints' biographies. I could not see any independent source satisfying WP:GNG ‘sources independent of the subject’. I don’t think that this WP:GNG can be applied, as it is, on biographies of muslim saints. Deletion of these type of pages is not durable solution to me. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
[Special:Contributions/182.189.179.182|182.189.179.182]] (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to name one example of a South-Asian saint with coverage in a reliable independent source: Moinuddin Chishti, who is discussed in a biographical encyclopedia of Sufi saints. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good example. Let’s have a look on it. Moinuddin Chishti needs no introduction in muslims’ spirituality. He is a saint because he has his ‘spiritual linage’ or ‘golden chain’. It is first and the most authentic parameter of muslim saints. Uwaisi saints have exemption of it. Uwaisi saints never have spiritual linage. Second parameter is the criteria of inclusion of someone in golden chain of any spiritual order. This criteria is set only by founder of any spiritual order. Successor saints only follow these criteria. They cannot change it. If successors change it then they rename the new system. Please don’t ask me of sources of above statements. These are well established conventions and can be seen in each muslims spiritual chain.
- Short reflection on literature sources on Moinuddin Chishti. Available literature on muslims’ spirituality hardly go back to eighteenth century. Most of the oldest sources are of 1850s and onward. These literatures are books that are narrations about saints. These are mostly exaggerated, superficial, and fiction-like stories. Being very optimistic, if we consider those books authentic then we should have answer to cover information gap of centuries (12th century to 18th century). There was no source of information except words of people’s mouth. Development of onward information sources (independent books and encyclopedias etc.) about the Moinuddin Chishti on the basis of these information sources is authentic and acceptable. Published and widely circulated material about saint Abdul Hakim Ansari and his spiritual chain Tauheediyah is being objected as not independent to subject. Same will be acceptable after publishing by a local vender on payment of few pennies. This situation demands redefining of notability of muslim saints. I liked this very constructive discussion very much. I respect opinion of expert editors and am convinced that in view of present policy guidelines defined in wikipedia. pages on Tauheediyah and Abdul Hakim Ansari deserve deletion. Consensus for ‘’’endorse’’’ is convincing and understandable.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|