Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naqvi Orientation


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi Orientation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a rambling and unencyclopedic personal essay on the general theme of Naqvis, full of original research and synthesis. I bring it here because it is clear that the PROD will be contested, either before or after deletion - the author is arguing against deletion on the talk page, and he and a new SPA have already posted twice at WP:REFUND. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Concur. Rambling and unencyclopedic essay. Violates OR, NPOV and Synth. OP wants to push his religious point of view and somehow explain how religion is sustained by biology and mathematics. -- Alexf(talk) 10:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essay about the editor's personal concept,"Naqvi Orientation" - I can't find sources discussing this, so no evidence of notability but evidence of original research. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above, and as per my PROD nomination. Unencyclopedic in both tone and content. Much of it is unsourced, and several sources cited do not back up the statements for which they are cited. Not even faintly appropriate for Wikipedia. DES (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Incoherent piece of original synthesis and probably fringe. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article provides good information about the Naqvi lineage, since there is insufficient material to support the article the author is at best left with rational estimates. However, the biological cause of deviation stated is Original Research and the author may consider removing that part. -fia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.1.249 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 October 2013‎ (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.