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

The result of the debate was Delete. The consensus here among impartial Wikipedians was nearly unanimous in favoring deletion. Xoloz 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild/Articles for deletion[edit]

This page is a blatant violation of advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

This page is clearly designed to rally members of the "Wikipedia Muslim guild" to game the page for deletion process by stacking votes. What occurs is that when a Muslim guild member nominates a page he wants deleted, he post the link on this page so that other members of the Muslim guild and like minded editors can go there and vote in line with the nominating member of the guild. This is clearly a tactic used to game the vote for deletion process through sheer force of numbers.

A recent example of this practice can be seen here. where members of the Muslim Guild or like minded editors like :user:Striver , user:BhaiSaab , Szvest, User:Itaqallah,User:Irishpunktom ,Nielswik one after the other followed the link to the afd and voted in support of the nominator of the AFD. CltFn 03:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Speedy keep per this, this and this. You should also have noted that the most bottom afd is about a pro-Muslim article, afd'd by me. --Striver 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although CltFn is wrong in saying that I arrived to the Anti-Dhimmitude afd via this page, I can see what he's trying to say. An appropriate substitute can be made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, similar to the one that already exists for Judaism-related topics. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And here we go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that project singled out as one not being allowed to list afd's it views relevant? If it is not disallowed, why are you voting delete? --Striver 10:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't see why this page benefits the project in any way. The nomination says it all and this should go. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 04:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per user:Striver. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.114.179 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep it looks like a badly formatted and inefficient deletion sorting page. Seems rather useless to me, but the deletion rational being presented here is all wrong. I'd suggest that the group use a better format, such as what is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Vote stacking in bad, but deletion sorting is good. Sometimes it's a fine line, but from this page alone I can't see how this is any different from a del sort page. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After hearing more of the concerns being brought up I would like to retract my support for keep. -- Ned Scott 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I generally don't have problem with such pages, provided that they are used fairly. There have been a number of instances where this page has been used unethically and for soliciting "delete" or "keep" votes. There have been instances provided in the first nomination of this page. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Some other user nominates an article completely unrelated to Islam here. The page is used for advocacy, and here another administrator warns them against it. Here Mr. Stiver says that this article has nothing to do with Islam, but still he is nominating it. I wonder why? Again Mr. Striver is notifying other users unless you want ALL the Muslim list go away, vote here:. Vote here? AfDs are not votes. They are discussions and debates. One more. I don't see any reason why this page should be kept on wikipedia. This is organised abuse of the project and should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting is a fair project and not used for "vote advocacy" and for "gaming the system". Yes, the members can still continue with the abuse by the means of private communication, but I still do not want them to use Wikipedia as a convinient medium. Thank you all. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, I detest all forms of soliciting votes, especially when they're pointing in a strong direction of influence like these ones. Concensus is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia, and anything that can maleform it, such as could be the result of these pages, is something that we must attempt to limit. This really isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia, and although I can't complain if this happens off-wiki, we need to limit this kind of material as much as possible. Sorry, but it has to go. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep. There's nothing wrong with a page which simply lists AfDs relating to a specific subject. However, in this case the page requests or instructs editors to vote a particular way, which is a violation of the policy against campaigning. (Examples from the page: "Please vote on either to keep this article deleted or to have it undeleted and improved." "This is a usefull list… It needs many votes if its not going to be deleted." "Please vote to redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion.") The page could be kept if the solicitations were removed. —Psychonaut 12:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You give excellent reasons for a 'Delete' and then vote Conditional Keep. Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but from your comment, wouldn't you agree that a deletion-sorting page would be much better than what we have here? ImpuMozhi 01:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless this page can be used responsibly. If actual soliciting continues, this page cannot be used in a reasonable manner, and therefore needn't exist. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 12:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the same can be said of many other projects. What about our own India related notice board TerryJ-Ho 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs so as to prove where that notice-board has been misused? There just might be a stray incident here and there, but responsible wikipedians from India do not indulge in this kind of unethical activities. We have our own opinions and we do not solicit for !votes on XfDs. I have already provided enough evidence that this page has been used irresponsibly. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My feeling is similar to Psychonaut's - if it can be used responsibly, it should be kept, but I'm not sure if this page can do the trick properly. If there's some good faith word or evidence that it's being used in line with the relevant policies, keep it, otherwise, get rid of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The purpose of this if to solicit votes for afds.--Jersey Devil 14:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding expresing opinions in this kind of pages, people might want to look at the "Current XfDs:" section of User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, and then visit the result of its afd. --Striver 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination (once the confusion of the entire structure was sorted out) --Mhking 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regarding expresing opinions in this kind of pages, people might want to look at the "Current XfDs:" section of User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, and then visit the result of its afd. If there is inappropriate comments, those are to be deleted, not the entire page, since it has the real function of informing people. And yes, anyone may put the page to their wachtlist. The page is a spin out of the main projects talk page, if deleted, it will simply move back there and clog up that page. Basically, it is nothing more than a legit break out sub-article. The content will remain in one form or another. If any user is putting unsuitable content, then that needs to be addressed.--Striver 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep- While putting one message in the talk page of different wikipedians is recognized as spam, then we need a place to put such messages. We need this page because wikipedia is a network community and whatever joints wikipedians together stronger is vital. Be sure if this page is deleted then wikipedians(Muslims and non-Muslims) use wikiproject Islam to solve this problem.--Sa.vakilian 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Used for nefarious purposes to turn wiki into a battleground. Also see precedent for other pages of this sort of purpose Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Category:Patriotic_Indian_Wikipedian's_Guild and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch. Users from this org also have been solicited to back up Racist users on ANI. Users from this "guild" have been ganging up on innocent users like User:CltFn. User:Dangerous-Boy, and User:Blnguyen and this should be deleted immediately. I could care less about the Deletion sorting pages, because those are ok. - Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of baseless allegations are that? How is that relevant to the sub-page we are talking about? Please explain this to me, because i do not understand. --Striver 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that was one HUGE bad faith allegation, NONE of the named individual are EVER mentioned in the page we are talking about! As for presedence, i have already provided this, and above, somebody else provided the India related project. Please refrain from using OTHER conflicts to smear THIS talk. --Striver 01:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to delsort|Islam - I thought the actual Muslim Guild thing was up for Afd. It should be move to delsort|Islam or whatever.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. You make me laugh, Bakaman. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 03:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This sort of partisanship has no place whatsoever in a scholarly enterprise.Proabivouac 05:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - per Sir Nick and Daniel.Bryant. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment could somebody explain to me why User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard gets a snowball keep, without even being a part of a project, while this gets all this deleted votes? I try not to assume anything, so could somebody explain to me why this is not double standard?--Striver 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Daniel Bryant. The only thing I can suggest to salvage this page is to move it out of the Muslim Guild and make it a subpage of both WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Deletion sorting. The page should be entirely modelled on the latter. This will perhaps help reduce the Muslim Guild's role (and/or a stigma) in maintaining this page and increase participation of others to create a neutral working system. Rama's arrow 13:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that is a "merge"? I don't care were the info is, as long as it is somewhere. --Striver 13:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "merge" because I don't know if this is actually a practical idea that will solve anything, but its something we should explore a bit. I certainly don't think only a "merge" will solve the problem. What I suggest to the editors who want to keep this page is that you allow for this page to be deleted but work under and with community support from WikiProject Deletion sorting - make a fresh endeavour and create a new, better-organized, open and impartial process instead of protecting a broken one. Rama's arrow 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I certainly don't see the point of having 2 deletion sorting processes, one under MG and another from WP Islam. Rama's arrow 13:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, what "impartial process"? Stop pretending that this is an exclusive page for an exclusive project! Even if it was on a UserPage, it should get a snowball keep, ffs, this is not even on a userpage, its on PROJECT page! I am starting to get really angry at this bias! If you want to move it under WP:Islam, then fine, but stop accusing me of being a biased *** who is only interseted in gaming the rules. FFS, i do NOT deserve this bad-faith accusations! --Striver 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- i would just like to note, as on the admin's noticeboard, that CltFn has been rather economical with the truth when labelling users whom he believes accessed the relevant AfD through that page, and the claims seem to be little more than an extreme case of bad-faith on his part. ITAQALLAH 13:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Has he gone to daddy to whine? And he lies on the procces?! That really pisses me of!--Striver 14:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is a venue for discussion for the people interested in Islamic related topic. --- ابراهيم 13:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment man, i did it again, i commented while i was angry... i appreciate if you pretend i said the above in a civil way... sorry... --Striver 14:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point, is, the allegedly inappropriate comments that are being used as an argument to delete this page, rather then to move it or keep it, could have been done anywhere'. Even if this project was under WP Islam or anywhere else, the comments could still have been done. Would we then had deleted the entire page then, no matter where it was, or just deleted the inappropriate comments? Why did'nt anybody tell me that such a comment was inappropriate at the time i made them? Why month later? Remove the comments if you want, but don't delete something i have given time to build. And anyway, the closing admin of afd's do not count simple "votes does he? So why is it so damn bad for me to give my opinion, if afd's are not a vote anyway? Anyway, if somebody had told me to stop it, i would, but nobody did. And to delete THE ENTIRE page is way overreacting to some comments that nobody cared about when they were relevant. --Striver 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I urge to to remain civil and calm. Do not edit wikipedia on impulse. The reason why Deletion stub sorting page would be appropriate for this, is because only the AfDs for the linked articles would be shown, instead of other users commenting on it. This is the only way we will see it as fair. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so are we going to delete User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard as well, or is this argument only applicable to Islam-related afd-pages? --Striver 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any specific problem with that page. If you are so keen on it, why not nominate it for MfD? Although, review WP:POINT before doing that. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so that page listing afd's and and making comments is not a problem, but this one is? --Striver 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the comments? Diffs? Start another MfD by all means, but I don't see a reason why that would be deleted. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Nearly Headless Nick and Daniel.Bryant. Deletion sorting is the place to notify about AfDs. As Nick has pointed out, such a process is more appropriate as it eliminates the issue of personal comments.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If the page is being used to solicit votes, delete.--§hanel 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete factionalising -Doc^g 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I think most of our users and editors are sufficiently intelligent to watch relevant AfDs and decide independently of their respective stand. They certainly do not require a special space to be coaxed to learn, form opinion or to get opinionated based on the comments on this page, and then move to the AfD pages to record their comments, and vote for or against a deletion. This page and similar pages are perhaps an insult to the collective wisdom of the community of wikipedians to understand and decide issues relating to AfDs. --Bhadani 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per N-H-Nick and Bhadaniji. Also, the respective AfD pages are the designated forum for debating any particular deletion proposal. What is the rationale for another (and avowedly communal) forum of debate? If the purpose is only to inform a group about current proposals, a deletion-sorting page is all that is needed. ImpuMozhi 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vote solicitation. Beit Or 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit con)Delete per Nick's Evidence of misuse. An alternative should be set up at delsort - but under their format (hence the delete comment). The message on the page in question "Please vote to redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion" deeply troubles me - this is not how XfD works. Martinp23 10:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit con, twice, thanks to Martin :D)Delete - We have Deletion sorting for this sort of thing, let's keep it all in the same place, eh? Also, I don't like the whole vote-solictation thing going on either, that could cause trouble for our consensus-based system, which works best when exposure to a debate is not affected by systemic bias of the users visiting that discussion. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Bhadani. -- Szvest 14:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}[reply]
• Delete as per original complainant. As they said this page is a violation of policy as stated by the advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. It is not right to gang up for votes. Nearly Headless Nick above explained more violations that this page has done in the past. All such sub-pages from the Muslim guild or other related pages which attempt to gang up like this, should be deleted ASAP.--Matt57 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Firstly, AFDs should not be secret, the more people who know about them the better. Secondly, the argument would be the same for deleting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting idea. Its a false argument.--Irishpunktom\^talk 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at both the pages (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam and the page in question) before you edited to make this comment? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 09:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's useless.--D-Boy 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per user:Striver. --Truthpedia 19:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see no harm in noting to other users what articles may be deleted. I think it's unfair to say that just because their religion associated relevance to the article could create a bias. For example, one of my articles was up the other week. Although I didn't take part, I was quite happy for it to be deleted as I knew it was borderline. And besides, no matter how many people supporting come, if it's as bad an article as you guys may think, who cares if a few biased voters turn up? It might give all you admins insentive to take a more active part in proceedings to make sure that they don't biasly vote... Just my 2 cents... Spawn Man 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the concern is not that articles get listed, but they get listed with biased comments. If they moved to a system with no or neutral comments then I would have no problem with this page. -- Ned Scott 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As said, remove the comments, not the article, stop using my previous ignorant comments to delete the entire sub-page, the "harm" (if any) is done, this is not about that. --Striver 11:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Irishpunktom. Wikipidian 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See Irishpunktom's response above.--Kitrus 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There already exists another page for listing Islam-related articles for deletion. This page serves no purpose. Moreover, its use as an medium for vote-stacking and soliciting violates the basic principles of Wikipedia policy. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - use the Deletion sorting project to transclude. This page is soliciting votes -- Lost^(talk) 17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Lost. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Psychonaut. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:18, 9 November 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.