Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS --   It is not clear whether this is a separate sect;  there do seem to be some acceptable sources. At least, that's the best I can make of the discussion. (Were it not for the delete opinions from Lankviel and Mezzo Mezzo, two respected editors who clearly have no  personal conflict of interest,  I would have closed as keep  on the basis of my dissatisfied with the motivation for the   nomination, which seems to be based on a religious disagreement with the group)      DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Ftutocdg (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC) - Hate Page - No official statement of the existence of such a sect - false allegations - defamatory article - Imagination of the author - No neutrality - No link between Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra - Incorrect information. Succession dispute but no official group called Qutbi is in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.114.115 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This group has no official existense, Its only a mischief of few people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.19.140 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Understanding shia succession

The Intricacies of Succession: Two Claimants Emerge for Dawoodi Bohra Leadership

Official Khuzaima Qutbuddin web site
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep or possibly Merge Despite Ftutocdg's claims to the contrary, everything I've read seems to suggest that this is the same group as that described in Progressive Dawoodi Bohra‎. Certainly there seems to be enough information in reliable sources to verify the group's existence, although both of the current articles are in a pretty poor state. The "official" status of the group is irrelevant; what counts is whether they have been written about in appropriate sources. It might also be possible to merge the information from both existing pages into a new article titled Dawoodi Bohra‎ succession controversy or something similar. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The description seems to correspond to the PDB group. The author has done an amalgam between supporters of Khuzaima Qutbuddin (so-called Qutbi Bohra) and PDB in a defamatory purpose. The comunity Bohra is headed by a "Dai". Since the death of the 52nd Dai (Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin), there is a conflict between Mufaddal Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin for the office of 53rd Dai. Khuzaima Qutbuddin was the second-in-command of the 52nd Dai. And all the supposed link between him and the PDB group seems to be fake. The article may be written to tarnish his image? Please read the link I posted above (especially Qutbuddin's web site where there is no mention of the PDB group). Thank you. Ftutocdg (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please justify your position. Do you read the link I've posted above? The article about this so-called Qutbi Bohra is completely non sense. --Ftutocdg (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete --Ftutocdg (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * reasons are posted above.
 * Support deletion. There seems to be no proof of connection between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Due to dispute in succession between Mufaddal Saifuddin & Khuzaima Qutbuddin, majority group (Saifuddin) is attempting to defame the other (Qutbuddin) via the means of linking it to a 3rd group (PDB) but there is no references for this. PDB has had different ideologies for years and there is no verifiable sources showing any communication or collaboration between PDB and Qutbiddin.mustafazr (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * support deletion too. Qutbi Bohras dont exist officially.90.84.144.8 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Upon looking at the sources, it seems they are much less than presented because many of them are cited multiple times but without the proper WP:REFNAME tag. Then, looking past that, it is clear that the all but a few of them are unreliable. Wikipedia itself is cited in there, as well as other online community encyclopedias. The official website of a Dawudi Bohra community as well as several Muslim-themed discussion forums also don't make the cut. What we're left with is a few sources from legitimate news organizations about succession in the Dawudi Bohra community; those individual sources can easliy be moved to the relevant article. The rest of what's here is a combination of OR and POV pushing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just finished an extensive clean up of the article's Talk page. It was a mess of unsigned edits made inside existing comments and I couldn't tell who had written what, or when. Meters (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clean up. But again, I repeat myself :
 * 1) There is NO link between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin.
 * 2) This so-called "Qutbi bohra" sect don't exist.
 * 3) There is a dispute on Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin succession between his son Mufaddal Saifuddin and his half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin for the leardership of the orthodox DAWOODI BOHRA, no mention of Qutbi Bohra on Khuzaima Qutbuddin web site ( http://www.fatemidawat.com).
 * The article is completely non sense : khuzaima Qutbuddin was second-in-command of the late Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin and PDB has split themselves from orthodox Dawoodi Bohra since 1980. The article was originaly written by user Araz5120 to probably tarnish Khuzaima Qutbuddin image with many false alegation and amalgam. The whole article is biaised and mainly based on rumors/gossip from a public forum ( http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/ ) . According to Wikipedia standard, such reference can't be used to write an article. I maintain my request for deletion. Thank you Ftutocdg (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that Qutbi Bohra is a sect formed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and i have provided the references for the same and mentioned about them in detail on talk. All arguments regarding non exsistance and repeated vandalisaton of the article suggests that efforts are being put in to hide it. Otherwise why would anyone even try to vandalise an article so many times risking being blocked. I would request that this article be looked at in an informative point of view and not make it a war zone of any person's perspective. Nobody can change what has been done in the past. Closing one's eyes to the truth or claiming falsely that an event that has taken place in the past has not taken place for whatever reasons, maybe for some personal gain, will not change the past. Just as Qutbi Bohra was mentioned in the newspapers and prominent websites and newsletter, every action or act done leaves some or the other kind of marks behind. Claiming ignorance to all these evidence and only mentioning discussion forums is like closing one's eyes to the facts, to the truth. Furthermore claiming Qutbi Bohra to be related to succession issue is another story made up to cover facts. Qutbi Bohra was born well before the succession issue even started as can be seen from newspsper references. And Qutbi Bohra's exsistance has remained since then can be seen from its reference in the current newspaper articles. Again the false claim that Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is not connected to Qutbi Bohra can be clearly seen by the support given by the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members or its factions to Khuzaima Qutbuddin in various current articles of succession issue. Why would members of the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect support a person who is claiming to be the successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect, from which Progressive Dawoodi Bohra had seperated from in 1977? All these point to an effort to hide the truth and this article has become a place to show it. By vandalising it, nominating it for deletion, making false claims against it, putting up a link on the same discussion forum, whose link is given by Ftutocdg above under 'relist', to support this article for deletion and what not must have been done. I don't know the intracities of Wikipedia, yet, as i am very new here. I like to write articles on various topics. I love it here in Wikipedia. I have updated some articles to the best of my knowledge about them. Coming back to Qutbi Bohra article i would request the editors, administrators to guide me as to how to save this article. Thank you. (By mistake i have placed the article above the discussion, can someone please rectify the same. Thank you.) Araz5152 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * All you write here and all your argumentation is based on rumor. "Qutbi Bohra" name arose in one newspaper (Times of India) when the nass ( successor appointment ) issue become openly discussed in public forum. So I don't know when and where you have imagined all this fiction about members of PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin ( the mazoon ie second highest spiritual rank in Dawoodi bohra hierarchy, which there is NO mention in your article ) leading a new sect... So, request deletion because NO RELIABLE SOURCE and purely fictional article. That's why I've done many deletion in your article, it was not vandalism, just a basic respect of Wikipedia standards. Ftutocdg (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Again you are claiming all this to be a rumor dispite all the references mentioned in the article. And the article you have mentioned in the Times of India newspaper, i have not put it as reference. That would be another evidence for this article. I will look it up and give reference to the same in the article, Thank you. Your claim that Qutbi Bohra sect was mentioned for the first time after the seccession issue is not true as it has been mentioned clearly in The Hindustan Times in March 2013, when there was no succession issue. Furthermore if in the succession issue when Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claiming to be successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect why did he mention about Qutbi Bohra, unless he wanted to promote it. Furthermore the reference to Khuzaima Qutbuddin's position is mentioned twice in the article. If you read carefully you will see it is mentioned under Qutbi Bohra schisms... and under Inter Bohra Schisms. I have not mentioned the post as he had been removed from the post when this article was written. Again if you see carefully in the whole article i have referred to Khuzaima Qutbuddin as 'the then Syedi', 'Syedi, was the word which was used before his name when he was on that post and when he had founded the Qutbi Bohra sect. Finally your claim that you were vandalising the article for the sake of Wikipedia; but Wikipedia says that if you have a issue write about it on talk page, discuss about it not vandalise the article. Again you are trying to impose your point of view on somebody else, in this case, Wikipedia. Just as you have been doing for this article all along. Just because you think, you have been vandalising this article and now you are putting the blame on Wikipedia; just because you think, you are claiming this article to be rumor dispite evidence to the contrary; just because you think, you have been continuously supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin and claiming that the article is baised; just because you think what is mentioned in the article is against what you may believe, you have been doing everything possible to get this article deleted. You have done all this and so much more, which i dont know, with regard to the article. Now i request you to just stop and look at this article from an informative point of view, without any bais, without any feelings, without any perspective or point of view. What do you see? An informative article that gives one a clear picture of an incident in the history of mankind that had been hidden but was brought out by the very people who wanted to hide it. Araz5152 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra (PDB) and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is specified in the earlier discussion mentioned above. Araz5152 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to argue with you, Araz5152,
 * Your so-called logorrheic argument is nothing more than a proof of lack of evidence. I see here your pure interpretation of the different rumors about "Qutbi Bohra" and the involvement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the supposed link with the PDB.
 * An encyclopedia must be objective and must not leave room for interpretation and speculation. If I support Khuzaima Qutbuddin or Mufaddal Saifuddin it's not your business. I'm even not Bohra but studied Ismaili tradition. Most of your aricle has no basis if not the obscure and baised sources you quoted.
 * Exemple of reference quoted by Araz5152 to justify this fictional matter :
 * * http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi (this article has no report with Bohras)
 * * http://peeepl.co.uk/details/bohra-kutbi/
 * * https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DawoodiBohraIzzy/conversations/topics/1978
 * * and other different threads on http://http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum
 * Let Wikipedia administrators decide. Ftutocdg (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you but just replying to your claims. And i have already mentioned about the evidence in the above discussion. Regarding interpretation, it is you who is interpreting and assuming that this article is linked to the succession issue without any proof. As regards to relationship between the leader and founder of Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, i have already mentioned in succession issue and also mentioned in the Qutbi Bohra article and also explained it in the above discussions and in talk pages. And again in the mention of sources you forgot the references to newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites. Now see this fresh news http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20140219201402190948025314ccd41f7/Bohras-who-refuse-to-denounce-Qutbuddin-face-boycott-threats.html?pageno=1. This will be printed in tomorrow's newspapers in India. See how the name Qutbi Bohra is mentioned here. A phone call just when the reporter was there. What are the chances of such a thing happening? Let it be. The main thing is Qutbi Bohra again got publicity. And what do you see at the end of the article, the mention of reformist group and the leader of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect Asghar Ali Engineer. What a coincidence. In the article there are 8 heart rendering stories. 8 families so called protected by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, without mentioning his name, he is the one staying in Thane. That is why Thane is mentioned as a protected place for these families. Another story of people called from outside Mumbai. Reporter seems to meet one of them but he turns out to be a victim. Strange story put together by a reporter, i doubt. Too many stories cramped together, stories conflicting amongst themselves. Imagination running wild. Children of other caste are against them but principal is with them. Why are people eating out of plastic bags when they are sheltered by the richest man in the Dawoodi Bohra sect, Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Cant he even feed 8 families properly. This newspaper article is just a instrument to gather sympathy of the public and also to publicise about Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra written by the media person of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. For at a time when elections are due in the country and so much is going on, which reporter of which news paper will have time to cover such a pointless issue and write a baseless and badly written report on the same, unless it is paid for. And names are changed because there are nobody like the people mentioned there. Furthermore the photograph in the newspaper article is a file photograph of the Dawoodi Bohra community in an event that had taken many days earlier. What are they trying to prove they forgot to take the photographer along and just added any photograph that was available even if it is not connected to the article. Lastly i just want to mention that the way they are publicising Qutbi Bohra, is because they dont want to hide it any more nor do they want to hide Qutbi Bohra's relationship with Progress Dawoodi Bohra sect; then what is Ftutocdg trying so hard to cover up? You see now everything is an open book and you are reading it in the Qutbi Bohra article.

Araz5152 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Again your are going round in circles with misinterpretation and trynin to put your POV without objective arguments.
 * 1) RECENTLY, ie after the issue arose, "Qutbi Bohra" was a name using by newspapers for easily point out Khuzaima Qutbuddin followers, as "Mufaddali Bohra" for the followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin. But there is no question about PDB, Khuzaima Quatbuddin, etc, ... and a conspiracy theory !
 * 2) You have prooved by yourself that you write this article to defame and to "show the truth because someone want to hide it".
 * 3) NONE OF YOUR REPLY is objective.
 * 4) THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE YOU CAN WRITE WHAT YOU WANT BASELESS.


 * I beg you to give us RELIABLE SOURCE (and not Yahoo groups or public forum) to proove your claim, especially on this points :
 * * Link between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin
 * * The so-called sect was formed in 2004 in Udaipur
 * * The agressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, toward Muhammad Burhanuddin
 * * The secret activities of the Mazoon, ie Second-in-command of Dawoodi Bohra hiererchy, in Udaipur.
 * Thank you.
 * PS : please stop saying I'm trying to hide something, you may be a paranoid person but there is no conspiracy here. It's ridiculous. I'm just seeking objective facts.
 * Ftutocdg (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is asking me the same questions again and again and you are claiming that i am going round in circles. You are misinterpreting this article to be linked with the succession issue when i have made it clear again and again. I have just written an article but it is just because of your wrong pount of view that i have to write an explanation that now seems to be longer than the article itself. Let us come back to the points: 1)ans. Qutbi Bohra was not made after the succession issue started but much before that. Ref. The Hindustan Times 15th April 2013 when there was no succession issue. 2)ans. The words are 'they dont want to hide it anymore' you have again twisted the facts and given your point of view. 3)ans: All the references given in the article are objective. If there are any subjective reference it is only given to support the objective references. And here in the talk page my discussion is subjective to the questions asked by you but then we are here to discuss the Qutbi Bohra article and not the talk page. 4) ans: Again you forgot to mention the newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites and mentioned only forums as per your point of view. Other points:
 * Link between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is clearly mentioned in the article, explained in talk pages and in AFD.
 * for explaining 2004 formation i will have to explain in detail the events that had happened in 2003 related to Khuzaima Qutbuddin, but that will tarnsh his image badly and also would terminate his claim to succession issue. Wikipedia is not a place to stain the image of any person.
 * Aggression of Khuzaima Qutbuddin towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be clarified once i update the letter of apology written by Khuzaima Qutbuddin for his untoward acts towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that will have the same effect as above and Wikipedia is not a place to spoil the reputation of any person.
 * Secret activities of Khuzaima Qutbuddin in Udaipur again will have the same effect of smudging his image and spoiling his prospects and in this case it will also hurt the sentiments of Dawoodi Bohra sect as he was holding the said second highest position at that time. In this whole discussion you have been asking me to malignate his image in public, on Wikipedia, you even spelt his name wrongly. What is exactly your intention?Araz5152 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because your reference are misleading and tendentious. Give us trusty and reliable source instead of writing a long and redundant answer. Ftutocdg (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole article do not match Notability and Verifiability guideline. Ftutocdg (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that Qutbi Bohra is a sect formed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and i have provided the references for the same and mentioned about them in detail on talk. All arguments regarding non exsistance and repeated vandalisaton of the article suggests that efforts are being put in to hide it. Otherwise why would anyone even try to vandalise an article so many times risking being blocked. I would request that this article be looked at in an informative point of view and not make it a war zone of any person's perspective. Nobody can change what has been done in the past. Closing one's eyes to the truth or claiming falsely that an event that has taken place in the past has not taken place for whatever reasons, maybe for some personal gain, will not change the past. Just as Qutbi Bohra was mentioned in the newspapers and prominent websites and newsletter, every action or act done leaves some or the other kind of marks behind. Claiming ignorance to all these evidence and only mentioning discussion forums is like closing one's eyes to the facts, to the truth. Furthermore claiming Qutbi Bohra to be related to succession issue is another story made up to cover facts. Qutbi Bohra was born well before the succession issue even started as can be seen from newspsper references. And Qutbi Bohra's exsistance has remained since then can be seen from its reference in the current newspaper articles. Again the false claim that Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is not connected to Qutbi Bohra can be clearly seen by the support given by the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members or its factions to Khuzaima Qutbuddin in various current articles of succession issue. Why would members of the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect support a person who is claiming to be the successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect, from which Progressive Dawoodi Bohra had seperated from in 1977? All these point to an effort to hide the truth and this article has become a place to show it. By vandalising it, nominating it for deletion, making false claims against it, putting up a link on the same discussion forum, whose link is given by Ftutocdg above under 'relist', to support this article for deletion and what not must have been done. I don't know the intracities of Wikipedia, yet, as i am very new here. I like to write articles on various topics. I love it here in Wikipedia. I have updated some articles to the best of my knowledge about them. Coming back to Qutbi Bohra article i would request the editors, administrators to guide me as to how to save this article. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Again you are claiming all this to be a rumor dispite all the references mentioned in the article. And the article you have mentioned in the Times of India newspaper, i have not put it as reference. That would be another evidence for this article. I will look it up and give reference to the same in the article, Thank you. Your claim that Qutbi Bohra sect was mentioned for the first time after the seccession issue is not true as it has been mentioned clearly in The Hindustan Times in March 2013, when there was no succession issue. Furthermore if in the succession issue when Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claiming to be successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect why did he mention about Qutbi Bohra, unless he wanted to promote it. Furthermore the reference to Khuzaima Qutbuddin's position is mentioned twice in the article. If you read carefully you will see it is mentioned under Qutbi Bohra schisms... and under Inter Bohra Schisms. I have not mentioned the post as he had been removed from the post when this article was written. Again if you see carefully in the whole article i have referred to Khuzaima Qutbuddin as 'the then Syedi', 'Syedi, was the word which was used before his name when he was on that post and when he had founded the Qutbi Bohra sect. Finally your claim that you were vandalising the article for the sake of Wikipedia; but Wikipedia says that if you have a issue write about it on talk page, discuss about it not vandalise the article. Again you are trying to impose your point of view on somebody else, in this case, Wikipedia. Just as you have been doing for this article all along. Just because you think, you have been vandalising this article and now you are putting the blame on Wikipedia; just because you think, you are claiming this article to be rumor dispite evidence to the contrary; just because you think, you have been continuously supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin and claiming that the article is baised; just because you think what is mentioned in the article is against what you may believe, you have been doing everything possible to get this article deleted. You have done all this and so much more, which i dont know, with regard to the article. Now i request you to just stop and look at this article from an informative point of view, without any bais, without any feelings, without any perspective or point of view. What do you see? An informative article that gives one a clear picture of an incident in the history of mankind that had been hidden but was brought out by the very people who wanted to hide it. Araz5152 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The relationship between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra (PDB) and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is specified in the earlier discussion mentioned above. Araz5152 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing with you but just replying to your claims. And i have already mentioned about the evidence in the above discussion. Regarding interpretation, it is you who is interpreting and assuming that this article is linked to the succession issue without any proof. As regards to relationship between the leader and founder of Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, i have already mentioned in succession issue and also mentioned in the Qutbi Bohra article and also explained it in the above discussions and in talk pages. And again in the mention of sources you forgot the references to newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites. Now see this fresh news http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20140219201402190948025314ccd41f7/Bohras-who-refuse-to-denounce-Qutbuddin-face-boycott-threats.html?pageno=1. This will be printed in tomorrow's newspapers in India. See how the name Qutbi Bohra is mentioned here. A phone call just when the reporter was there. What are the chances of such a thing happening? Let it be. The main thing is Qutbi Bohra again got publicity. And what do you see at the end of the article, the mention of reformist group and the leader of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect Asghar Ali Engineer. What a coincidence. In the article there are 8 heart rendering stories. 8 families so called protected by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, without mentioning his name, he is the one staying in Thane. That is why Thane is mentioned as a protected place for these families. Another story of people called from outside Mumbai. Reporter seems to meet one of them but he turns out to be a victim. Strange story put together by a reporter, i doubt. Too many stories cramped together, stories conflicting amongst themselves. Imagination running wild. Children of other caste are against them but principal is with them. Why are people eating out of plastic bags when they are sheltered by the richest man in the Dawoodi Bohra sect, Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Cant he even feed 8 families properly. This newspaper article is just a instrument to gather sympathy of the public and also to publicise about Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra written by the media person of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. For at a time when elections are due in the country and so much is going on, which reporter of which news paper will have time to cover such a pointless issue and write a baseless and badly written report on the same, unless it is paid for. And names are changed because there are nobody like the people mentioned there. Furthermore the photograph in the newspaper article is a file photograph of the Dawoodi Bohra community in an event that had taken many days earlier. What are they trying to prove they forgot to take the photographer along and just added any photograph that was available even if it is not connected to the article. Lastly i just want to mention that the way they are publicising Qutbi Bohra, is because they dont want to hide it any more nor do they want to hide Qutbi Bohra's relationship with Progress Dawoodi Bohra sect; then what is Ftutocdg trying so hard to cover up? You see now everything is an open book and you are reading it in the Qutbi Bohra article. Araz5152 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is asking me the same questions again and again and you are claiming that i am going round in circles. You are misinterpreting this article to be linked with the succession issue when i have made it clear again and again. I have just written an article but it is just because of your wrong pount of view that i have to write an explanation that now seems to be longer than the article itself. Let us come back to the points: 1)ans. Qutbi Bohra was not made after the succession issue started but much before that. Ref. The Hindustan Times 15th April 2013 when there was no succession issue. 2)ans. The words are 'they dont want to hide it anymore' you have again twisted the facts and given your point of view. 3)ans: All the references given in the article are objective. If there are any subjective reference it is only given to support the objective references. And here in the talk page my discussion is subjective to the questions asked by you but then we are here to discuss the Qutbi Bohra article and not the talk page. 4) ans: Again you forgot to mention the newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites and mentioned only forums as per your point of view. Other points:
 * Link between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is clearly mentioned in the article, explained in talk pages and in AFD.
 * for explaining 2004 formation i will have to explain in detail the events that had happened in 2003 related to Khuzaima Qutbuddin, but that will tarnsh his image badly and also would terminate his claim to succession issue. Wikipedia is not a place to stain the image of any person.
 * Aggression of Khuzaima Qutbuddin towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be clarified once i update the letter of apology written by Khuzaima Qutbuddin for his untoward acts towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that will have the same effect as above and Wikipedia is not a place to spoil the reputation of any person.
 * Secret activities of Khuzaima Qutbuddin in Udaipur again will have the same effect of smudging his image and spoiling his prospects and in this case it will also hurt the sentiments of Dawoodi Bohra sect as he was holding the said second highest position at that time. In this whole discussion you have been asking me to malignate his image in public, on Wikipedia, you even spelt his name wrongly. What is exactly your intention?Araz5152 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I repeat myself because Araz is flooding this page with his personal interpretations of recent events within Dawoodi Bohra community and he is unable to provide a single reliable source for the content of the article, especially :
 * 1 - Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his secret activities
 * 2 - the link between Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the progressive Dawoodi Bohra
 * The rest of the artcile is completely defamatory (eg the Agressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin toward the late Dai, the misappropriation of funds, ...
 * The article has no informative role for Wikipedia if not some propaganda. User Araz5152 confused Wikipedia with a blog. Maintain DELETE, Qutbi Bohra sect has not been officialy claimed and all written here is fictional. Thanks Ftutocdg (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, I'm not going to pretend I understand the complex politics that underlies this, but looking at the sources I'm not convinced this group meets the WP:GNG. We have one article, seemingly originally from the Hindustan Times  that talks about "talk", and which has been republished by "The Indian Express" and "The Muslim News".  We also have a link to  which is being used to support a claim that Qutbi Bohra is behind the group, but there's nothing to confirm that on the site, and it's not an independent source anyway.  I've tried some Google-Fu with various spellings and come up with a lot of forum posts and blogs, but nothing reliable to validate what's written here.  It's possible there is mountains of substantial reliable content in Indian languages on the topic, of course, but those are essentially invisible to us here until someone with knowledge of those languages presents them.  Either way, I do not envy the task of the lucky admin that gets to close this discussion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC).

There is evidences of local newspapers, testimonials, letters etc which i am at a loss as to how to upload to Wikipedia. then there proofs which Ftutocdg is asking, which would definitely prove the exsistance of Qutbi Bohra sect but would defame Khuzaima Qutbuddin to a great extent such that his claim regarding the succession issue will also be nullified. but i am at a loss to understand that reputed editors reading the article and expressing the view that they have not properly comprehended the issue and also provide suggestions for making it clear but vote to remove the article. i request everyone to understand the issue, if they have any doubts please use talk page but please dont give an outright vote to just remove the article. Just try to understand the situation. when would a person who creates a secret sect want to bring it into the open. exactly, when he thinks that hiding this fact is no longer useful but to reveal it and get it an identity. in 2013 why would Khuzaima Qutbuddin write an article about his sect and create a furore in the Dawoodi Bohra sect because he knew that by revealing it he stands to gain by the use of the succession issue. This is a well planned setup and all the details are mentioned in the succession issue. Ftutocdg vandalisation of the article, then his waiting for the AFD decision and editors putting votes for removal of the article without understanding it, is it just my imagination or is Ftutocdg planning in all ways to get this article removed. i request serious intervention on the part of Wikipedia to save the article. I have given answers to all the queries here and in talk, although both pages were edited by an editor i sincerely hope all is well with the content. I really dont know the politics of article removal on Wikipedia, but i can definitely see the politics being played by Ftutocdg, i really think he should devote atleast some time doing some constructive edit instead of imposing his viewpoint on the articles in Wikipedia and resorting to distructive editing. Araz5152 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (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.