Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimiya Sufi Order

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

The result was delete. When ignoring rampant meatpuppetry, there is clear consensus here. causa sui (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya Sufi Order[edit]

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)[reply]

Keeep This is nonsense. I note that Jeff3000 is a member of the Bahai Internet Agency http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency taskforce assigned to wikipedia by the Bahai body. This person is engaging in an blatant act of religious persecution regarding this article.

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 wikipedia 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)[reply]

As such I disagree with the reasons for nomination and vote against this article being deleted. --Fatimiya (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's stay on topic, which is about Wikipedia standards for notability and reliable sources. Making comments about the editor (which by the way are all untrue) has no place on Wikipedia (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)[reply]
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. The fact is, however, that you have nominated this article because you are a member of the Bahai Internet Agency taskforce of wikipedia and have a history of ideologically motivated deletion of articles and harassment of individuals who trump the ideological line of the Haifan Bahai organization to which you belong. You are not impartial here and the reasons for your nomination are not impartial either. I contend that your nomination is an act of bad faith and sock-puppetry on behalf of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Please note that your nomination for deletion and your subsequent activities in relation to this article are being recorded and will be publicly disclosed to third parties as an attempt by the Bahai Internet Agency of persecution of a non-Bahai religious group --Fatimiya (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 wikipedia you maintain a long track-record on wikipedia 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)[reply]
I have pointed to the relevent Wikipedia articles. Self-pubslished sources such as blogs, personal websites, etc are not considered [[WP:RS]reliables sources. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify this for me Jeff. Is the University of Queensland a blog, a personal website or a self-publishing website? Which of these three is it? Help me out with this one. --Sevenislucky (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

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

KEEP 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) — Samuel.Brc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • 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. See WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:RS for more details if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. (and just in case anyone asks: no, I'm not part of a conspiracy against whatever religion this group is). Qrsdogg (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say KEEP. On the basis that first, the nominator is a Baha'i whereas the article mentions that the organisation concerned (Fatimiyya Sufi Order) has made statements contradicting the Baha'i narrative and this has led to an easily verifiable (with the help of Google) bitter and protracted public quarrel between the Baha'is and the convenor of the Fatimiyya Sufi Order. This is clearly a case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST if ever there was one. The nomination should be struck out on that basis alone. Second, even if there was no conflict of interest, the reasons given for deletion are spurious and clearly false. According to Google there really seems to be an organisation by the name of Fatimiyya Sufi Order and its existence is confirmed by many people not connected with it, from SOAS to 'realitysandwich'. --Sevenislucky (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note, the above editor is a single-use account created one minute before posting the above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that Jeff. Thanks. I'm glad you noted it too. At least you noted something. I created this account just to post that comment and as you're a moderator you will hopefully note my IP address is 1) fixed and 2) different from all other commentators on this page. Have you anything to note about your failure to note that the Fatimiyya Sufi Order is recognised by SOAS, realitysandwich and others not connected with Mr Azal or his organisation? Please take note and refer to Google and the references list again. Thank you.--Sevenislucky (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)— Sevenislucky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note that editor Jeff3000 is determined to delete this article no matter what. I refer to the discussion above and to this link, here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency . Unless Jeff3000 can show otherwise, I can't seem to find anything that says single-user accounts cannot vote or express their views about an article nominated for deletion. I remind Jeff3000 that Wikipedia is a community effort and that no editor here holds a personal propriety over the site. --Fatimiya (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy. For these reasons, experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and SPAs carefully in a discussion to discern whether they appear to be here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or alternatively edit for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject; at the same time it is not a platform for advocacy. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have already made it clear that I created this account just because I was concerned about the nomination for deletion. Judging by your comments, certain things have 'no bearing' on the question of whether an article can be deleted. These things are: having academic credentials to support a particular claim about a group (in this case the group Fatimiya Sufi Order) and being new to Wikipedia, which you have just stated will be treated as a crime. On the latter point, I have noted that EVERYONE who joined up like me to express their disapproval at the nomination for deletion has now been officially accused of sockpuppetry. And yet you accuse strangers of acting in bad faith? And you say new editors are welcome at Wikipedia but your view as an older member carries more weight. I simply don't accept that. Your opinions have no special status here.--Sevenislucky (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say KEEP. and don't delete the article - my name is Roya - I am the creator of this entry, I am a research and IT professional and the academic credentials of this order & persons are verified. I am an expert in Social Information Architecture & work within inter faith dialogue & for anti-extremism iniatives. The Fatimiya Sufi order, their Shaykh and it's teachings are recognized with letters of reference by Cambridge University and SOAS - School of Oriental and African Studies - London. The teachings described as Bayanism/Babism, and the schism between Bayanism & Bahaism - is recognized by scholars in Cambridge and London & worldwide. Further reference in artcile, EG Browne etc. Further academic soruces for references are available but not included yet due to time factors. It has been checked if the person / organisation named as Fatimiya Sufi Order & Nima Wahid Azal is victim of online bullying which we found by analysis to be positive. The methods of the declared enemies of this order - enemies due to different spiritual teachings and schism between Bayanis/Babis & the Baha'i - have not gone unnoticed by authorities and scholars. The issue of online bullying and silencing people of different beliefs through such methods has also been put forward to anti-extremism/cult monitoring groups. The Fatimiya Sufi Order under leadership of it's Shaykh Nima Wahid Azal is a genuine research and spiritual authority on Babism, the Bayan as well as the Bahai which are important & recognized branches of Shi'a Islam & Sufism. See for example speeches at SOAS. I can be contacted under the email address known to Wikipedia to verify my identitity & the academic credentials mentioned (copy of letters etc). I have now added 3rd party references to the article that highlight the wider relevance and academic importance. Infringement of copyright concerning the Fatimiya Sufi Order is impossible as the contributed material is unique & references are verifiable through historic sources & academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royajakoby (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Royajakoby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Your academic credentials have no bearing on the notability of articles on Wikipedia. The article needs to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The subject and article are both clearly lacking in this area. It's not enough to vaguely assert notability in a deletion discussion. The article itself, must document notability through the general notability guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There appear to be rules for notability established for most articles and entries on wikipedia while another applied to this one. We have established independent notability 1) through 3 independent written references and 2) 2 independent audio interviews (which for an inexplicable reason you say we cannot include although there is nothing that says we cannot include them as references). Just as your earlier assertion about this article violating copyright (which it wasn't as that site itself was quoting from the Fatimiya site) so is your assertion now about the lack of notability. This is an excuse. There are articles on wikipedia with far less notability than this one yet they have been on wikipedia for years. Arguably there are interested parties intent on deleting this article, as this article is clearly being singled out because the nominator of the article has a history of this sort of behaviour with all other groups and articles deemed ideological enemies to the Haifan Bahai organization to which he belongs; this, given the fact that he is a sock-puppet of the Bahai Internet Agency: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency and has not denied it. Also due to the baseless accusations that have been made here (esp. the sock-puppet ones, that are clearly designed to disenfranchise the voices who wish this article to stay), and contrary to your assertion earlier that there is no conspiracy, clearly given the behaviour here of assorted parties there is absolutely no other conclusion to be made than that this is precisely what is going on. Thankfully there are three institutionally affiliated academics here who have now witnessed this spectacle for themselves and can record it for posterity about the standards of moderation and nomination on wikipedia, and the kind of manipulative bureaucratic red-tape that is employed to silence and censor legitimate entries --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I haven't commented about any audio interviews. There are a couple of external links (Radiohuasca) that are dead though. I tried to find a link at the waybackmachine.org, but there was nothing there. Please note, that we cannot use blogs such as those on blogspot.com to support notability. On another note, yes, the content was created as a copyright violation. The copyright holder has not officially donated the material to the Foundation. This content was removed by the reviewing administrator, as a clear violation of copyright law. Regardless of your claims to authorship, unless (and until) you provide proof of copyright ownership to the Foundation, it remains a copyright violation and as such, we cannot accept the content on Wikipedia. I really don't understand why you don't choose to follow through on donating the content to Wikipedia, if you are indeed the owner of the copyright. Of the three citations that directly support article content, only one (realitysandwich.com) mentions the subject in any great detail beyond peripheral mentions. This simply doesn't equate to significant coverage. I'm personally not connected to any conspiracy. And I'm certainly not intent on seeing the article deleted. My focus is on ensuring that notability for the subject has been established in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have personally performed a thorough search of "Fatimiya Sufi Order" in books, news, and online sources that may support the article. The only content that I have found amounts to self-published material. As far as different rules for notability from one article to the next, all articles about churches, religions, or religious orders require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I didn't identify an author of the material. I simply identified the copyright violation, which was appropriately removed from the article. The material appears to be based on the works of Laurence Galian and two other individuals. (I agree that there was bad editing/visual placement.) It's also messed up on the Fatimiya Sufi Order webpage. Regarding the EG Browne link, quite puzzling, since the link never once mentioned the subject of the article. Please note that the http://fatimiyasufiorder.org website clearly has a notice of copyright at the bottom of the page (not that one is required to ensure protection). Wikipedia wouldn't use the material even if the copyright notice didn't exist. We simply cannot use any copyrighted material on Wikipedia, unless it is officially donated to the Foundation. And in this particular case, the content was never donated. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above editor has voted twice. Also E.G. Browne never comments on the principle subject of the article, as he died well over 70 years before the apparent start of the Fatima Sufi Order. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.G. Browne clearly commented and extensively documented the Azali-Bahai division, esp. the murder of Azali (i.e. Bayani) leaders by the Baha'is. What are you talking about? And it is Fatimiya not Fatimi --Fatimiya (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E.G. Browne documenting the aforementioned issues http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/diglib/books/A-E/B/browne/tn/tnappx2.htm --Fatimiya (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes, E.G. Browne did write about the Azali-Bahai disputes, but he did not write about the subject of the article, which is the Fatimaya Sufi Order, because he died 70 years before it started. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatimiya, Jeff300. F-A-T-I-M-I-Y-A. Please note the correct spelling for the main word of the article you yourself nominated for deletion --Fatimiya (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC) — Brooks Sattva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP This article has met all criteria to KEEP. This article has shown more credability than many other long standing articles. Those seeking deletion seem to have an agenda other than community participation in Wikipedia.--Al Zulfikari (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)— Al Zulfikari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete The first two sources are not independent. The third source might be independent or it might be a press release handed to the University. Zero GBooks or Gnews hits, so it there just aren't enough reliable independent sources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward321, are you referring to the program for the 2008 'Alternative Expressions of the Numinous Conference', held at the University of Queensland in association with the Studies in Religion Department, for which papers needed to be accepted by the conference's organising panel? If so, this is demonstrably not the case. If I need to clear this up, I will. Those supporting the deletion of this article need to CLEARLY state why the web-magazine, Reality Sandwich, published by Evolver LLC, and covered by wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Sandwich, is not valid. Daniel Pinchbeck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pinchbeck) is the magazine's editorial director. The article referred to was a feature article, not a blog, thus it was subject to editorial review. Essentially, the editors supporting deletion are suggesting that Reality Sandwich, and by implication, its editorial director/team, are not reputable. Is this the case?Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are independent. If Edward321 has evidence that they are not independent, let him show the evidence that they are not (that still means something here, right? Evidence). I've now put in a third independent source from Sufi.Net that has also been linked in other articles on wikipedia as a reference of notability. Clearly this article meets all the criteria of notability. BTW what is the result of the sock-puppet investigation against the three people here? --Fatimiya (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is clear almost all hits on the internet are self-published, blogs, email discussion areas announcing the group for publicity, etc. The only third party ref I saw was a blurb which was ONLY a quote from one of the blurbs. The first source is under the heading "PROPAGANDA ANONYMOUS'S BLOG", the second only mentions it with almost no commentary, the third indicates only a session at one conference designed to look at small groups and the presenter is a member of the group, and the third is another blog by a recent investigator of sufi meditation and is again mentioned only as a member of a long list of alternative sufi meditation groups. How does any of this reach notability? It doesn't. Smkolins (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmKolins. Please see here: http://www.realitysandwich.com/fatimiya_sufi_and ayahuasca. It is listed as "Feature" under the category "Pysche". Therefore, the article is a feature, though it was also posted under this users blog. Get your facts straight, please. And what does your pejorative suggestion regarding the 'size' of the groups mentioned at the conference mean? And just for the record, is Reality Sandwich a reputable source, or not? Samuel.Brc (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All features on Realitysandwich must go through an editorial process. Propaganda Anonymous is a writer on the site and as a writer of the site has their own blog. No one on Realitysandwich can publish a feature without editorial oversight and no individual article is published without reference to the blogger-writer who authored it. This is that site's policy. Smkolins is welcome to write the site and ask them about this policy. Clearly there is a determined ideological motivation initiated by the wikipedia taskforce of the Bahai Internet Agency to delete this article. Canard and red herrings are presented as arguments regarding notability. Double-standards are being employed instead which in a court room setting would indict said parties for collusion and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. As such, insofar as this matter is concerned, a complaint has been filed as of today with a body who investigates claims of religious persecution and discrimination, and against the Bahai Internet Agency and their activities on wikipedia. Archives of this discussion together with archives of previous instances when users Jeff3000, Edward321 and their friends have done similar have been forwarded to the body.--Fatimiya (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildthing61476-Your reasons being?Samuel.Brc (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources, zero hits for the group, all the sources that are found are self-published, which are not reliable sources. In short, I don't see where notability is being met. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article represents a recognized Sufi order and the work of its founder presents a rigorous, authentic, contemporary scholarship that illuminates the path of Sufism. Gloria Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — Gloriaerickson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists. Wikipedia has rules for notability that every article must meet, and this one currently does not. That's not to say that the order isn't valid, but for now at least, it doesn't meet the established guidelines for an article on Wikipedia. That's not to say it never will, there are many articles that were initially deleted as not meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, but later did end up being articles that met these guidelines. For now, however, the article does not. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per my comment above. - SudoGhost 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article meets all necessary criteria to exist. This wouldn't be the first page containing ideological differences to certain groups that has been hounded into deletion Rowan3001 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Rowan3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — [[User::Rowan300|:Rowan300]] ([[User talk::Rowan300|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete per lack of notable media coverage, I didn't see anything except for the group's website on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister- What are you talking about? Why is almost everyone supporting deletion ignoring the Reality Sandwich article? Nobody has given a straight answer as to whether they perceive this as a reputable source or not, as per my comments above. This article was actually recast on a news feed at the University of Western Sydney. http://mcm.uws.edu.au/feed/article/189495/collapse/ajax/ajaxSamuel.Brc (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Sandwhich article is a blog. Most blogs are considered self-published sources, and are not sufficient to establish the notability of an article's subject. As this blog entry seems to be the only reference being suggested as showing notability, the article therefore does not have sufficient notability. - SudoGhost 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The article on Realitysandwich is not a blog it a featured article. Calling it a blog is a misrepresentation of how Realitysandwich works --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This link makes it pretty clear on being a blog. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page (and part of the URL). - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, SudoGhost, it doesn't make it clear it's a blog post, because the article isn't a blog post. The blog you are referring to is a collection of the ARTICLES etc (including blog posts), submitted by the contributor, Propaganda Anonymous, so it did appear in this users blog after it had been published as a feature. This is how Reality Sandwich works. Did you even read my comments above regarding the editorial process at Reality Sandwich? See here again: http://www.realitysandwich.com/node/76773 The article is a "Feature" article, in the "Psyche" category, and that is how it appeared when it was originally published. It's a bit hard to misrepresent such a thing when it's right there at the top of the page. Samuel.Brc (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it says Blog in big letters across the top of the page, it's hard to argue that it isn't. The "Feature" article is a blog by another name, calling it otherwise does not make it so (it isn't a collection of blogs and non-blogs, and nowhere does it say the blog post is an article, but instead breaks the blog posts into different tags). This is not a reliable third-party source, and it is not enough to establish the notability of the article. However, even if the blog is not a blog, and is 100% a reliable source, articles require multiple reliable sources, not a single reference of questionable reliability. This alone is not sufficient. - SudoGhost 23:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pinchbeck has a 'Blog' here http://www.realitysandwich.com/blog/daniel_pinchbeck, in which his FEATURE articles are then re-posted, so as you can see, unless you are questioning the reputation and reliability of the site and its editors, you really have to admit that this is a genuine article. If this is so, surely the fact that there ARE multiple other sources, including two audio interviews by third parties, a verifiable paper at a religious studies conference, and footage of a talk given at the Society of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London (to which one does not just walk in and start talking), does in fact establish that a notable discourse exists regarding this subject. The existence of a conference paper about this subject should also suggest that further academic discourse is on its way (noting also that the Reality Sandwich article was also recast in a news feed at the University of Western Sydney, as mentioned above), which would mean that rather than delete this article, it should be kept with a note for future expansion.Samuel.Brc (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are blogs. Not articles. That they are "featured" on their own website does not make them cease to be a questionable self-published source. - SudoGhost 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting the whole of Reality Sandwich is a blog, not a web magazine? Go to page of 4 of the 'Psyche' category of the feature articles, and you will see the article clearly labelled 'Feature'. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4 . Every contributor of 'feature' articles also links to their own blog page, which is a secondary collection of their articles. This is how the website works. I don't know how this can be made any clearer. The article in question went through editorial review, ie it, and all the other feature articles, are 'features' first, and blog posts second. If you wish to argue differently, I suggest you go and change the Reality Sandwich wikipedia entry from a web-magazine, to a blog. See below:

"Reality Sandwich is a web magazine published by Evolver LLC, a privately held company. The site is intent, as its tag line expresses it, on "evolving consciousness bite by bite". Subjects run the gamut from sustainability to shamanism, alternate realities to alternative energy, remixing media to re-imagining community, holistic healing techniques to the promise and perils of new technologies. It offers a forum for voices ranging from the ecologically pragmatic to the wildly visionary. Content includes essays, short news stories, video clips, and audio podcasts. Over 1,000 articles have been published on the site since its launch in May, 2007. Author Daniel Pinchbeck serves as the magazine's editorial director, and SonicNet co-founder Ken Jordan is its publisher. Contributors include Douglas Rushkoff, DJ Spooky, Erik Davis, Alex Grey, Stanislav Grof, RU Sirius, Sharon Gannon, and The Yes Men."Reality Sandwich Samuel.Brc (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're really not getting anywhere with the back and forth on this issue. With all due respect, you're simply not going to convince experienced editors according to your lack of knowledge about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's simply no point to it. It has been explained to you over and over again to no avail. I suppose it comes with experience. I would like to invite you to consider reading and reviewing the policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Once you familiarize yourself with the policies, you may have a better understanding and be able to clearly identify what is acceptable on Wikipedia. And what is not. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing the point because I believe the editor in question, and indeed the editor who originally nominated this article for deletion, are incorrect in labeling this source as either 'self-published', or as a blog. As per wikipedia policies, Questionable sources:

"are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I am arguing the validity and reputation of Reality Sandwich as a resource, under the editorial oversight of Daniel Pinchbeck. I would also like to note this point. The content of the article relates to material on Bábism, Subh-i-Azal, the Bayani movement and Haoma, amongst other things. Whilst presenting a counter-narrative, which certain editors who have worked on these topics in relation to the Baha'i Faith may not agree with, this article relates to a significant socio-religious discourse (which has been initiated within the academy as per the conference proceedings, and is also mentioned in a typological list of Sufi groups by a full tenured Professor of Sociology here http://sufi.religionsnet.com/), and presents clear future potential for improvement as more scholarly research is made available. As far as inclusion goes, this should mean that this is not an example of an entry constituting an indiscriminate collection of information.Samuel.Brc (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is nothing (that I can find) that either supports or denies oversight of the Propaganda Anonymous blog. It is, however, a blog. Blogs lacking oversight are considered self published. See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB for more information. Please note that even if we accept that oversight is provided, the sourcing still does not establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. On another note, it is futile to argue the reputation of Reality Sandwich. Reputation is not among the criteria that establishes notability on Wikipedia. And the http://sufi.religionsnet.com/ is self-published by Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. his "full tenured" status has no bearing on the fact that the website is self-published. Again, recognizing the appropriateness of various sources and whether or not specific references meet the criteria for reliability comes with experience. While your enthusiasm is commendable, it is simply a bit misguided. Your arguing is essentially landing on deaf ears, because the rationale is not in compliance with policy and guidelines. While assuming good faith about you personally, you may wish to review this link regarding invitations extended to others, requesting them to participate in this discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy- no, it is a feature article (with a tag saying 'feature') that appears, as all feature articles do, as blog posts on the individual contributor's blogs. http://www.realitysandwich.com/psyche?page=4. Period. Whatever you may say about 'deaf ears', I personally don't care how many times I have to repeat this point, as the fact remains that this is not self-published. All articles go to the author's blog page after being published. For example, if you go to editorial director, Daniel Pinchbeck's, page and click on the first entry in his blog, it will take you to the related feature article/news item etc, which is not designated as a blog. Do you see how this works? Entry on an individual contributor's blog is SECONDARY to the publication of the article as part of the content of the magazine. The same applies to the article in question here. You go to the user's blog page, which is a collection of their articles, and it takes you to the feature page. As I suggested to another editor, if you disagree with this position, you'd probably best go and change the Reality Sandwich Wikipedia entry to reflect your assertion that this is not in fact a web-magazine, but a collective blog, or series of blogs. I'm not backing down on this point, 'deaf ears', selectively deaf ears, or otherwise. Furthermore, to quote SudoGhost, "Nobody is questioning that it is a recognized order, or that it exists." As per deletion guidelines, For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. I have added the Fatimiya Sufi Order to the list of Sufi Orders here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sufi_orders#F, and since SudoGhost says there is no reason to doubt the Order's existence or recognition, this should not be an issue. So are you prepared to support wiping this one out completely, even with an independent mention in university conference proceedings and internal linkages to major historical articles within Wikipedia? Samuel.Brc (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I really don't want to argue the issue anymore. The horse is long.gone.dead. On another note, I think adding the organization to the List of Sufi Orders was great! I realize that you initially arrived at Wikipedia merely in a desire to participate in this deletion discussion. These discussions can often get a bit heated with quite a bit of repetition of arguments and statements. While we may not share opinions of this particular article, I maintain respect for you and I appreciate that in spite of the disagreement, you have maintained your cool during the discussion. That said, I would like to invite you to consider staying around after the discussion is over. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Wikipedia has "WikiProjects" within the community that bring editors together that share common encyclopedic interests. We have a specific WikiProject that may interest you, that focuses on religion. Here is a link. You'll notice that there are also specialized workgroups and potential workgroups that focus on one particular religion. It doesn't look like Sufi Orders are represented within the WikiProject. Would you consider sticking around and participating in this area? It can actually be a lot of fun! I invite you to check it out. If you are interested, add your name to the list of members on the project page and spend some time checking out all their resources. And of course, if you have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial board and site owner of Realitysandwich have been notified of the manner in which certain wikipedia editors here have deliberately misrepresented that site and the work it does. It has been explained to how Realitysandwich works. Another editor even requested the site itself be contacted. Instead the editors here have stuck to their guns and continued their misrepresentation. --John Theodore Sanders (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — John Theodore Sanders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - not notable. No significant, verifiable, third party references. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fatimiya_Sufi_Order&oldid=1087826282"