Elf or Jinn – Endorsed. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Elf or Jinn (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) No matter what monarchy of admins. No acceptance of printed material what a definition of source. No matter What a justice of all you scholar admin, my one article (Elf or Jinn) during editing deleted. I have got a award of making Jinn as God, see his comments on my talk page.Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Er. I have never said that you posited that God were a Jinn. Rather, I said that you were making comparison between Jinn and God. (E.g.: "Unlike the elf, God never sleeps" - for some reason, you consider the Elves a western equivalent of the Jinn.) In any case, keep deleted (as the deleting admin). The article was an unencyclopedic religious essay, and it was duplicate with the existing article Jinn per comments by the article's creator (WP:CSD#A10). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I am sorry, but there is obviously a problem here with regard to competence. Nannadeem, with all due respect and from one non-native English speaker to another, but a lot of what you write is not understandable for other editors. Also, you don't seem to grasp the difference between encyclopedic content and original research/synthesis. You should study our guidelines and policies a bit more. Article creation is one of the more difficult things here on WP. Perhaps it would be better if you first would get some experience on the Wikipedia of you own language and brush up on your English, before continuing here, because at this point I am really afraid that you are wasting your valuable time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Seems like a duplicate of what is already covered at Jinn. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Nannadeem: I see that this is the second of your new articles that has been deleted and this is clearly a disappointment for you. However, I agree with the other people here that these sorts of article really are not suitable for Wikipedia. From the discussion at WP:Deletion review#Ape is a Punished Man there are a few people who seem to have an understanding of what you are saying but even they do not think Wikipedia is at all the right place to be expressing your ideas. Any article you write must be entirely based on what has been published elsewhere and you cannot add in your own beliefs even if you are sure you are right. That is what Wikipedia is about. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Sorry, this is not the place for original research and essays.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - What was the Criteria for speedy deletion used to delete the article? WP:NOTCSD notes that essay articles are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what criteria was used, but one look at the article suffices to see that this would be a valid application of WP:IAR. No sense in going through the moves of an AFD here and waste everybody's time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] As I have noted here, the article meets the speedy deletion criterion A10 as a duplicate of the article Jinn (per creator's comment on his talk page, "I have been attempting to write about jinn or elf as per available material already published on scientific approach, based on religious doctrines.") At the moment of deletion I wasn't really sure under which criterion the article fell (I was thinking about A1 or A10 [duplicate with God in Islam and related pages]), but the user clarified his intentions later. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I suppose we could go through the formality of AFD but it's not worth it. And I'm afraid this is another personal essay on an Islamic/Arabic which is simply not material for an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Refer the nom to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. This material is not close to suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] A personal Essay. An Islamic Essay. A non referenced (where printed material has been denied). These are basis for evaluation of my articles. At times I would prefer to take this matter in arbitration. The purpose is to keep me out from editing. This is a domain now being dominated by some biased admins. Nannadeem (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] When you sign your posts, just put the 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end for it to show properly. I moved yours for you just now so it would display properly. If you do it at the beginning, it throws the comment formatting off. But anyways, the Arbitration Committee doesn't preside over matters of content, they only do matters of behavior and interpretation of policy, so I really wouldn't recommend trying that route. This is nothing against you personally, it is just that encyclopedia articles are not a place for original writing or thoughts on subjects, it is for reflecting and referencing what external sources have to say on a subject. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] It's an interesting article but it's also original research, which we don't accept here. I would encourage the original poster to find somewhere else to publish this, but I also have to endorse its removal from this site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply] I know the WP since its inception. I was a supporter of WP by Debate. In one of my article a learned admin argued about printed material in Urdu Language giving his views that it is not comprehended to others (endorsed by admin family). Such Admins should consider the basis of knowledge. Knowledge or Science does not have a language, region or religion. Language of Aristotle is not understood but knowledge he delivered in his language is achieved without commenting the standard of language. Before denying printed material in Urdu language rational health is necessary. Personal Essay: I accept in my first article there was a reflection of personal style. However, I asked for help from editors and admins to point out removal of contents or modification of style/format – but nothing from either side. I attempted to remove the controversial contents and personal reflection. There are numbers of articles on WP which are disputed since long but no admin using his power. WP is not a democracy. If democracy or dictatorship then no hope for logic or rationality (parents of Science). The question of source: my reading is a source and its address or location has ever been provided, the acceptance of source is something else. Recognizing a source should not be weapon of admin, instead there should be clear list of acceptable sources. Presently my sources meet the criteria of WP laid down policies. So the matter qualify for arbitration. Nannadeem (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nannadeem, are you a troll or a kook? Are there teams of editors or administrators out to get you, censoring perhaps. Consider whether you may be displaying some features causing others to think you are either a troll or a kook. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Smokeyjoe, thanks. May you be more wise. I have good faith and no malafide designs for my WP (our WP).Nannadeem (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Please tell me what Wikipedia:Attribution tells you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Elf or Jinn – Endorsed. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC) No matter what monarchy of admins. No acceptance of printed material what a definition of source. No matter What a justice of all you scholar admin, my one article (Elf or Jinn) during editing deleted. I have got a award of making Jinn as God, see his comments on my talk page.Nannadeem (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I have never said that you posited that God were a Jinn. Rather, I said that you were making comparison between Jinn and God. (E.g.: "Unlike the elf, God never sleeps" - for some reason, you consider the Elves a western equivalent of the Jinn.)
In any case, keep deleted (as the deleting admin). The article was an unencyclopedic religious essay, and it was duplicate with the existing article Jinn per comments by the article's creator (WP:CSD#A10). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I am sorry, but there is obviously a problem here with regard to competence. Nannadeem, with all due respect and from one non-native English speaker to another, but a lot of what you write is not understandable for other editors. Also, you don't seem to grasp the difference between encyclopedic content and original research/synthesis. You should study our guidelines and policies a bit more. Article creation is one of the more difficult things here on WP. Perhaps it would be better if you first would get some experience on the Wikipedia of you own language and brush up on your English, before continuing here, because at this point I am really afraid that you are wasting your valuable time. --Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. JohnCD (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like a duplicate of what is already covered at Jinn. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nannadeem: I see that this is the second of your new articles that has been deleted and this is clearly a disappointment for you. However, I agree with the other people here that these sorts of article really are not suitable for Wikipedia. From the discussion at WP:Deletion review#Ape is a Punished Man there are a few people who seem to have an understanding of what you are saying but even they do not think Wikipedia is at all the right place to be expressing your ideas. Any article you write must be entirely based on what has been published elsewhere and you cannot add in your own beliefs even if you are sure you are right. That is what Wikipedia is about. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sorry, this is not the place for original research and essays.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What was the Criteria for speedy deletion used to delete the article? WP:NOTCSD notes that essay articles are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what criteria was used, but one look at the article suffices to see that this would be a valid application of WP:IAR. No sense in going through the moves of an AFD here and waste everybody's time. --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have noted here, the article meets the speedy deletion criterion A10 as a duplicate of the article Jinn (per creator's comment on his talk page, "I have been attempting to write about jinn or elf as per available material already published on scientific approach, based on religious doctrines.") At the moment of deletion I wasn't really sure under which criterion the article fell (I was thinking about A1 or A10 [duplicate with God in Islam and related pages]), but the user clarified his intentions later. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I suppose we could go through the formality of AFD but it's not worth it. And I'm afraid this is another personal essay on an Islamic/Arabic which is simply not material for an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Refer the nom to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. This material is not close to suitable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A personal Essay. An Islamic Essay. A non referenced (where printed material has been denied). These are basis for evaluation of my articles. At times I would prefer to take this matter in arbitration. The purpose is to keep me out from editing. This is a domain now being dominated by some biased admins. Nannadeem (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you sign your posts, just put the 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end for it to show properly. I moved yours for you just now so it would display properly. If you do it at the beginning, it throws the comment formatting off. But anyways, the Arbitration Committee doesn't preside over matters of content, they only do matters of behavior and interpretation of policy, so I really wouldn't recommend trying that route. This is nothing against you personally, it is just that encyclopedia articles are not a place for original writing or thoughts on subjects, it is for reflecting and referencing what external sources have to say on a subject. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting article but it's also original research, which we don't accept here. I would encourage the original poster to find somewhere else to publish this, but I also have to endorse its removal from this site. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I know the WP since its inception. I was a supporter of WP by Debate. In one of my article a learned admin argued about printed material in Urdu Language giving his views that it is not comprehended to others (endorsed by admin family). Such Admins should consider the basis of knowledge. Knowledge or Science does not have a language, region or religion. Language of Aristotle is not understood but knowledge he delivered in his language is achieved without commenting the standard of language. Before denying printed material in Urdu language rational health is necessary.

Personal Essay: I accept in my first article there was a reflection of personal style. However, I asked for help from editors and admins to point out removal of contents or modification of style/format – but nothing from either side. I attempted to remove the controversial contents and personal reflection.

There are numbers of articles on WP which are disputed since long but no admin using his power. WP is not a democracy. If democracy or dictatorship then no hope for logic or rationality (parents of Science).

The question of source: my reading is a source and its address or location has ever been provided, the acceptance of source is something else. Recognizing a source should not be weapon of admin, instead there should be clear list of acceptable sources. Presently my sources meet the criteria of WP laid down policies. So the matter qualify for arbitration. Nannadeem (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nannadeem, are you a troll or a kook? Are there teams of editors or administrators out to get you, censoring perhaps. Consider whether you may be displaying some features causing others to think you are either a troll or a kook. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smokeyjoe, thanks. May you be more wise. I have good faith and no malafide designs for my WP (our WP).Nannadeem (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what Wikipedia:Attribution tells you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.