Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Great Name


 * 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 - Unanimous vote MINUS the socks -- JForget  00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Most Great Name

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Authors User:Ahwa85 & User:SecretChiefs3 are known POV-peddling sockpuppeteers. The article has one English-language reference that does not necessarily support the subject. This is supposedly a Islamic occult symbol, so why is its only source a book on Babi rituals? Appears to be WP:OR. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional Criterion Looking at what links to this article, it's certainly WP:NN. If there's a place for the material that's actually verifiable to be merged, I'd be happy to see that. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to be referenced or notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficiently referenced. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreferenced, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This article provides all necessary references. No valid reasons for deletion have been provided. Nur110 (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Nur110 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Do Not Delete' I am here to lend my support in keeping this article. The article needs expansion not deletion. Please keep it and provide additional information about the symbol. This is what wikipedia is supposedly here to do is it not? JohnDanielHammond (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — JohnDanielHammond (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete: I am a Researcher of Middle Eastern Spirituality.  I have read all the cited sources, both the English and non-English sources.  They are authentic.  Those who wish to delete this article have not done the appropriate research to back up their stance.  There is also blatant dishonesty on the part of some editors here, who are deleting the sources, and then claiming that there are no appropriate sources to back up the article.  NO ONE should have a monopoly on Wikipedia!  The article is a valid and appropriate contribution to the subject matter and the author has done the necessary background research on it. Fatimazuhra786 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — Fatimazuhra786 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  * This user is a legit user. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete: I too am a researcher. The article is fine and requires additional information to boost it. There are far worse articles on wikipedia requiring a nomination to delete. Definitely not this one. I vote to keep it. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Priestofshangrila (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It's interesting how many self-proclaimed researchers with no previous edits are showing up for this Afd. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What is even more interesting is that the parties who nominated and then supported the article for deletion possess a certain sectarian rivalry, shall we say, with this symbol and seemingly are acting as if they are on a religious crusade on wikipedia against it. New or not, no one other than the Wikipedia corporation holds any entitlement to wikipedia or its articles here. This is supposedly a community effort - however much certain religious sectarians are continually gaming the system here to stamp wikipedia with their own peculiar slant - and is open to anyone with an internet connection. So kindly assume good faith and stop acting as if you own this place. You do not nor is it any entitlement exclusively belonging to any single editor or administrator! Nur110 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentPlease note that none of the procedures or protocols for nominating an article for deletion were observed here. The article was arbitrarily gutted of all content and then nominated for deletion. This violates NPOV and also does NOT follow assumption of good faith protol. Given this the very reasons for its nomination are invalid. As such the tag should be removed. The parties should then come back there and discuss the reasons, whys and wherefores for wishing to delete this article and then renominate if the issues are outstanding. Nur110 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Three notable Western language academic publications reference the device, one as recently as 2004:
 * H. A. Winkler. Siegel und Charaktere in der Muhammedanischen Zauberei. Berlin and Leipzig, 1930.
 * Father Georges Anawati. Le Nom Supreme de Dieu, Atti del Terzo Congresso Di Studi Arabi e Islamici, 1966.
 * (ed.) Emile Savage-Smith. Magic and Divination in Early Islam. Ashgate, 2004.

One editor removed all references and citations to the article and then nominated the article for deletion reverting it to its first version. This is not assuming good faith and is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. As such I have removed the tag. Nur110 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentBut here is the thing, your perforce deletion of the non-English *references* had nothing to do with the main body of the article. The non-English sources were in the references at the bottom of the article. Here is what the policy you invoke actually states,

''Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.''

This states nothing about non-English sources not being allowed at all, especially as it pertains to further reading references. What you did was vandalized the article and then nominated it for deletion without any discussion whatsoever then calling out your friends to come and support you in your actions. I have quoted the wiki criteria for deletion below. The article does not meet those criteria, and you have not even expressed your reasons for your deletion nomination. And here is where further the issue of good faith comes into play: instead of polishing or expanding or augmenting the article (or putting up a tag for expert input) you perforce took out all content, vandalized it then nominated it for deletion. Nur110 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion page of the main article, as an academic, my own approach to the issue is that the sources cited (English or otherwise) are both findable and available (I have checked both internet purchase and library sources). It would not be difficult to acquire the relevant sections for thorough translation, especially, as I previously stated, considering its importance in the body of work to which this symbol is central. Assuming good faith means that if I go and get these sources translated, I am not going to find that the general references made in the article are misleading, but rather helpful to the greater understanding of the topic area. This can be confirmed as far as needs by by citing the other scholars who have used these sources. For example, Adadm Gacek from the Islamic studies department at Mcgill University cites the Anawati article in his paper entitled "Ownership Seals in Arabic Manuscripts" (www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/articles/Gacek-1987-Ownership.PDF), alongside the Al-Buni articles:

(footnote 7)

"The word Huwa is often seen in Shiite manuscripts. Some Muslim theologians believe that this word is “the greatest name of God” (al-Ism as Azam) and is to be found in the Seal of Solomon (al-Khtami al-Sulaymani). See e.g. G.C Anawati. “Le nom de supreme de Dieu’. Atti del terzo Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamaci, Ravello 1-6 settembre 1966 9Napoli, 1967), pp.10-11; J. McG Dawkins “The Seal of Solomon’.. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1944), pp. 145-150; Ahmad ibn Ali al-Buni (d.622/1225), ‘Sharh al-Juljulutiyah al Kubra’. in Manba Usul al-hilmah lil-Buni (Beirut, . n. d. ) pp 171-182."

I would also cite the following article in English which clearly identifies the symbol in question:

http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PAPERS/GREATEST%20NAME/CHAPTER%20FIVE%20-%20SHAYKHISM.htm

Dr Stephen L Lamden, also clearly displays the symbol here:

http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

and quite clearly refers to the same non-english language sources as the ones in dispute in this page.Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — Truegardenvariety (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I’ve just been going through the edit history for this page, noting the disagreements, and noticed a few serious discrepancies that suggest that the AFD should be very seriously considered for removal. I agree with the other editor that the protocol for removal has not been properly followed. I’ve cited the relevant Wikipedia policy on this as far as possible.

1. What appears to be the major issue here is that the AFD tag was attached, then the disputed parts of the article deleted BY THE SAME USER immediately after, and before recourse to ANY other measures which may have been helpful in making this a better article. I have examined the edit log for this page, and saw that editor MARusselPESE cited the article for deletion, then 7 minutes afterwards, deleted the sources they had issues with:


 * 1) (cur) (last)  03:02, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (2,040 bytes) (Delete foreign language sources. Delete stale "citation needed" statements.) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 02:55, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (3,280 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Great Name) (undo)

Se also:

Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

'''How can the reasons for placing the AFD tag on the article then simply be validated by the subsequent actions of the same editor BEFORE any POST AFD notice discussion begins? The editord has simply made the case for nomination based on the changes they themselves made''' Doesn't this invalidate the AFD policy?

As far as further factors in deciding when an AFD should be applied are concerned, I’ve read through the policy, and placed notes in bold underneath.

Editing

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include

cleanup for poor writing expert-subject for pages needing expert attention notenglish for articles written in a foreign language npovfor bias stubfor a short article verify for lack of verifiability merge-for a small article which could be merged into a larger one.

Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves.

Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Why did the editor who cited his page not put up a VERIFY tag instead if they considered the sources questionable, especially considering that the high standards of the original references (perfectly verifiable, library listed, and referenced in other English texts with just a small amount of searching) made them prime candidates for verification, not deletion?

2. Consider also, wikipedia policy on deletion which states:

Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

How many attempts have actually been made by the editor to locate reliable sources if they believe the other ones to be inadequate? They have simply blocked out the ones in question.NB. It was actually these removed sources that, through some basic searching, initially lead me to more material on this subject with available English language references.

Also, deleting disputed sources/references 7 minutes after the nomination for deletion flies in the face of implementing fair discussion, as well as for implementing WIkipedia’s own policies!

As per the Wiki deletion policy:

Discussion

Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily.

'''What exactly do the editors know about this subject and how hard have they attempted to verify it? There is more than enough very valuable information on this page, that can no doubt be usefully expanded, and some of which has prompted me to investigate more extensive translation options for the cited foreign language sources. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the case for deletion, especially after some of the ways certain editor/s appear to have neglected the very policies on applying an AFD tag would seem highly questionable. Truegardenvariety (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am purposfully not casting a !vote here. This discussion has gone off track. AfD is not the place for addressing any concerns anyone may have about anyone's actions. This AfD discussion should be about the article. If you feel the article, as it stands, demonstrates notability, !vote "Keep" and explain why. If you feel the article can meet notability, make the changes to the article then !vote "Keep" and explain why. If you feel the article does not and cannot meet notability, !vote "Delete" or "Merge" and explain why. Concerns about another editor's actions do not belong in this forum. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (edited), this AfD has gone... interestingly... but, it would be nice to have page numbers for the footnoted sources. While I hope that the editors of this article will give us specific page numbers so we can try to verify this (my library seems to have some of the books) I am wary because of the level of sock puppetry and misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines that has gone on.  Just a note to other editors.  Don't vote delete based on the behavior of the creators of the article... its validity is completely independent from them and its that validity or lack thereof that will hopefully be found out here... gren グレン 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - having just read the article for the first time, my first impression is that it's poorly worded and sourced, and non-notable. If it is kept, I would reword everything. How can you start off a sentence with "According to legend... " ? Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  00:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The question remains as to why Deletion was the first recourse, and the protocols for nomination were not followed, when there were/are so many other valid recourses for the inclusion of this article? If the article is sloppy or needs verification, surely there are other ways of addressing this, especially since the very cited resources were deleted so soon (7 minutes!) after the AFD tag was placed there.And again, why is this article a candidate for deletion when the possible links to other sections, invaliadating the WP:NN claim, including Wikipedia's own entry on Al-Buni, the Names of God in the Quran, which refer to the 100th name/Most Great Name of God and support the verifiability of the sources (I mean, Al-Buni is HUGE in the area of study in question), have been overlooked when editors taking issue with the contents have investigated this article?Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' I have stated my views above. Keep the article. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment' Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment ar:الاسم الأعظم appears to be the Arabic article of this... gren グレン 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.