Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The strongest argument I saw on either side was from, who said WP:Trout-- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Qutbi Bohra
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly defamatory article, no such sect exists, used as a bad word against a claimant to the post of the successor of dawoodi bohras Summichum (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The first discussion was closed as no consensus on 27 February this year, less than a week ago. The nominator also filed a request for Arbcom to get this article deleted (see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment but I expect that to be speedily dismissed in favour of this AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was speedily dismissed . Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per reasons stated above. Old Al (Talk) 15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've given my reasons on the first deletion nomination
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qutbi_Bohra
 * 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Ftutocdg (talk)

I am the unfortunate author of this article. Ever since i wrote this article an editor named Ftutocdg has vandalised this article a number of times, just because of some pov of his regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin. He is not only vandalised this article but then he also put it for deletion. He gave pointless and repetative arguments and concluded every time with same repeated questions. Even at AFD he repeatedly vandalised the article. Now he has tied up with summichum, who has not only heavily tagged the article but also has put the article for deletion again. The last time when at AFD i had answered to all their queries. The AFD was longer than the article. I have also mentioned all the details on talk page.

But here they go again, another AFD? They are using the very instruments that help write a good article, against the article as a weapon to get the article deleted. And this time it seem they have gathered their friends together for the article is getting one delete after another.

Are there nobody in Wikipedia to reprimand them. Are there nobody to correct such destructive behavior of theirs. They are not only after this article but against all articles that are connected to Khuzaima Qutbuddin. It seems that they want to change the view of the world regarding Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or substracting him in the different articles of Wikipedia.

From the time i have come to Wikipedia, my intentions were to make as much contribution to Wikipedia as possible, but here i am defending articles, not once, not twice but everyday, everytime i login i have to first check if these vandals have done any harm to the article or not.

I again assert that i have mentioned answers to all the queries in the talk pages and now all the twenty references are valid references. Further the issue of succession that Ftutocdg and his chum has mentioned about is given in detail in succession issue. I hope editors discuss this article in the light of its content and not by the mention of the characters in the article.

I appologize for the harsh language. I don't mean to hurt anyone, just opened my heart, it had become too heavy. Araz5152 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * Who is new Syedna? Trouble brews as half-brother stakes claim, Indian Express, 6 February 2014
 * Quote: "However, followers of Khuzaima Bhaisaheb Qutbuddin consider him the rightful successor, having been the late Syedna’s closest aide over the years. A statement released by this sect, which has unofficially started calling itself the ‘Qutbi Bohras’, says the late Syedna had instructed the Mazoon to not reveal the nass at the time."
 * Meaning - The term "Qutbi Bohra" is actually called by a group of people to themselves. Whatever you call yourself is not defamation.


 * Bohras who refuse to denounce Qutbuddin face boycott, threats, Mumbai Mirror, 19 February 2014
 * Quote: "Rival claims for the title of 53rd Dai, or head, of the Dawoodi Bohras, from the late Syedna Burhanuddin's brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin and son Mufaddal Saifuddin have proved traumatic for the followers of Qutbuddin. Some of them are currently holed up in Thane, living under his protection, and constantly receiving threats from the rival side. Photographs of some of them have been circulated on WhatsApp. Indeed, while this reporter was talking to them, a they received a call from Rajasthan, from someone who asked chillingly: "What's the rate for a Qutbi Bohra?" Some of them were attacked en route to Thane. They've filed police complaints, but don't intend to press charges."
 * Meaning - The term "Qutbi Bohra" is also recognized by others.
 * Now if the issue is such that the "content" of the article is wrong, then that's a different issue not handled at AfDs. That can't be the reason for deletion. I see no reason put forward as such for "deletion" of article. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 05:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Strong keep: "Qutbi Bohra" find its mention into many already listed secondary, independent and reliable sources listed under references section of the article. And, as per Dharmadhyaksha. POV is not a reason for deletion. Edit the article to make it in compliance with WP:PG or simply tag with various maintenance tags available for someone else to perform this job. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment You !vote Strong Keep asserting there are "many listed ... sources [mentioning QB]". There are however only two when you . Sam Sailor Sing 02:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1 ) Qutbi Bohra name
 * Qutbi Bohra name is refering to Khuzaima Qutbuddin followers on newspapers. It is not a officialy sect name. Just reported words, like (quoted form User:Dharmadhyaksha answer)
 * " which has unofficially started calling itself the ‘Qutbi Bohras’ "
 * " Indeed, while this reporter was talking to them, a they received a call from Rajasthan, from someone who asked chillingly: "What's the rate for a Qutbi Bohra?" "
 * Mufaddal Saifuddin followers are called for example Mufaddali Bohra in bohras circles, but it dosen't mean such sect officialy exists.
 * 2 ) Higly dafamatory artcile with baseless references
 * The second problem is on the content of the artcile where most of references provided Araz5152 are dubious (public forum, peepl.com, and other yahoo groups talk pages). He is defaming one the claimant of the office of 53rd dai of Dawoodi Bohra. Khuzaima Qutbuddin has never claimed to be the leader of a so-called Qutbi sect, on the contrary, he is claiming to be the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra sect.
 * ''3) if keep'
 * In the case it is decided to keep this article,, and regarding to the dubious references provided by User:Araz5152, i want it to be kept in this version and it serves as a basis for possible changes : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014


 * Hope you understand
 * Best regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * PS : I know Araz5152 will again and again flood this discussion with his conspiracy theory drama. But I hope that people who know basic Bohras history will react properly.


 * Wikipedia includes notable subjects. If a term say, "PPP" find its mention in multiple reliable sources, It is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia irrespective of the "PPP" whether it is existing/non-existing person/building/monument/book/space jet/etc.


 * If an article doesn't read encyclopedic. There's a Wikipedia guideline to make corrections. If there are some dispute over some content, editors should ask for a WP:Third opinion or reach to Dispute resolution noticeboard not AfD.


 * In this case, I find the reason of deletion invalid. See, WP:DEL. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. The article as written matches several WP:DEL criteria :
 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * Ftutocdg (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Deletion is not cleanup, Too long; didn't read. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 03:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello - Reasons cited for deletion by you doesn't make sense to me, because:
 * Indian express, Hindustan times, Mumbai mirror, etc. are reliable sources. (See. Wikipedia reliable sources guideline).
 * I'm not sure what is your definition of Advertising. Explain! (See, WP:NOTADVERTISING for better understanding)
 * The present article is not a biography denoted to a particular person. If at some points it consist some unsourced defamatory content related to some living person. That particular line/section should be deleted. It is not a reason to nominate the article as a whole for deletion.
 * And, as there is no valid reason of deletion. I would be better changing my opinion from "keep" to "strong keep". Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Main problem is how the article is written, completely defamatory. That's why in my opinion it matches " Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes " citeria.
 * Araz5152 has witten it with no reliable references
 * example of dubious references
 * http://www.csss-isla.com/iis-archive115.htm
 * http://www.dawoodi-bohras.org.uk/azad/azad54.pdf/
 * https://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7751
 * http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi
 * http://www.newageislam.com/islamic-world-news/north-carolina-lawmaker,-links-islamic-prayer-to-terrorism--report/d/11151
 * http://peeepl.co.uk/details/bohra-kutbi/
 * http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8141&start=210
 * http://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DawoodiBohraIzzy/conversations/topics/1978
 * http://themuslim500.com/profile/asghar-ali-engineer
 * Seems most of you don't know Dawoodi Bohras recent events regarding the succession of Mohammad Burhanuddin.
 * It's pure propaganda by Araz5152 to legitimate Mufaddali Bohra camp.
 * So if the article is kept as you want, please keep it based on this version : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014
 * Regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are tons of topic on Wikipedia I'm not familiar with. What I see is, the mention of the subject (Qutbi Bohra) in multiple reliable sources. I repeat, if there are some unsourced/improperly sourced/poorly sourced defamatory content, just delete/re-write that particular one leaving an edit summary or making your case on article's talk page. At some instances you seem to be agree with the presence of the subject on Wikipedia but in another form. Suggest your changes on the article's talk page. If there's some dispute over this. Ask for a wp:third opinion or wp:request for comments from editors not already involved there. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Araz5152 is continuously undoing our edits and claiming vandalism. It is impossible to talk with him (I've already try). Yes, I was going to request a wp:third opinion but the article was nominated here. My wish is to keep a different version of this artcile as Araz5152 reference are completely dubious : Qutbi Bohra, as edited by Summichum at 17:57, 25 February 2014
 * regards, Ftutocdg (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One editor simply can not repeatedly revert other editors edit more than 3 times on an article within 24hrs. It violates three revert rule and results in a block. Beside three revert rule, being engaged into an wp:edit war often results into a block. Feel free to make a case at wp:aiv if you further encounter such situations on any page. Coming back to this nominated article for deletion, I welcome your wp:inclusionist view towards this article, doesn't matter the version. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ftutocdg's claim that the article is defamatory is completely false and i have already proved it in the last AFD and in the talk pages.

Furthermore the article has more than 20 reliable references, not mentioned by Ftutocdg. The name Qutbi Bohra is clearly mentioned in the references mentioned and hence all the claims of Ftutocdg are false.

And he himself proves how wrong and false his concerns for the article. Just check out the article link he has given which he wants to put up. It contains just 5 sentences and makes no sense. That is the level of vandalisation they had done to the article not once but many times. They have blanked the article a number of times even when it was at AFD last time. The only thing they are concerned with is their pov over Khuzaima Qutbuddin. They, Ftutocdg and summichum, are not at all concerned with the article or the reality but just want to get the article deleted or blanked out or whatever they can to get it out of Wikipedia. I repeat that they have this amazing pov that they could change the way the world looks at Khuzaima Qutbuddin by adding or deleting his name in the articles of Wikipedia. They have been doing this for some time now with many articles on Wikipedia.

I again would like to assert that:
 * Ftutocdg claim of defamatory article is false.
 * Ftutocdg claim of using different Wikipedia terms are also false.
 * Summichums multi tagging of this article just before submitting the article for 2nd AFD is also false and Ftutocdg was warned by administrator DGG when he wrongly tagged the article.
 * The article has more than 20 valid references.
 * The article is true and there is no element of hoax or original research or propoganda. The whole article is based on references provided.
 * The version which Ftutocdg wants to put up is a highly vandalised version of the article and contains only 5 sentences, the rest of the whole article is blanked out.

I have answered to all the queries of Ftutocdg in the last AFD and in talk pages. I request editors to please understand the pov of Ftutocdg and discuss with him accordingly. Araz5152 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Araz5152, you have proved nothing. Same rhetoric. Your artcile is a hoax, and you know it. So please stop your drama. I don't want to discuss further with you. Regard, Ftutocdg (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * AfD is not a place to make wp:personal attacks (in fact, no where on Wikipedia). Assume good faith and stick around the topic. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  06:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable, knowledgeable, what else you would want? If you feel that the article lacks WP standards, then try making it better.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment above. And this is simply getting longer with no weighted points as such. You people should chitchat somewhere else. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as it lacks WP:SIGCOV and I have spend quite some time going through all of those refs provided and added proper citations. Please notice the direct quote in Hindustan Times on 12 March 2013 of a founder of the sect: "While people are internally calling themselves Qutbi Bohras, it is not likely that there will be an open declaration of the sect as long as there is no power balance within the community." Take away the primary sources from the mainstream DBs, there's not much left. Take away all sources not directly calling the faction Qutbi Bohra, and there's only two left. If the community decides on !Keep, I would strongly suggest stubbing to something the size of to get rid of the elaborate WP:SYNTH and associated challenges. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 02:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor Sam sailor has been continously deleting and modifying references of the article just like a child playing with a toy. Just see the amount of manupulations he has done and after deleting 12 references till now, he is still continuing he claims that i am doing edit war. He is the one vandalising the references and also voted for the articles removal, clearly showing his intentions regarding the article. I request the administors to take his vandalism seriously as he is using a loophole in the system by making small vandalising edits and also modifying the same such that if reverted the will accuse the reverting editor instead of the vandaliser like Sam sailor. Please do the needful, request to all editors.

After removing the references he has also labeled article for citation needed etc.

And the article he is refering to in the AFD has just 5sentences and is a highly vandalised version of the article. This shows the intention of this editor Sam sailor. I request Wikipedia authorities to do the needful as soon as possible. Araz5152 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Araz5152, its not just Sam, but me and any other decent Wikipedian also would remove all the unsourced stuff, original researches and synthesis and stuff that seemingly has references but the reference doesn't really backup the claim made. Your howling and writing huge messages to "authorities" is not gonna work. You reverting back the article edits might only get to a good block time. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What an irony? The very policies that are used to protect articles on Wikipedia are been exploited by some editors and nobody at Wikipedia can do anything. Nobody has any rights to stop editors who go on a rampage over an article just because of some pov of theirs, using the very policies of Wikipedia used to protect articles. I guess there is no system of checking the edits of such editors against vandalisation such that they can blatantly claim that whatever you report to authorities nobody is going to listen. This is not according to Wikipedia standards and also not healthy with respect to protection of articles on Wikipedia.


 * Protection should be such that deletion and blanking should not be allowed to editors other than the author of the article or administrators. This would curtail vandalism to a great extend. It will also stop vulturism in editing wherein editors who do not contribute with any articles but just pick on other editor's articles for whatever reasons would be discouraged and genuine critics would be encouraged who will follow the procedure of mentioning on talk pages for editing.


 * Furthermore if there are issues it can be discussed in talk pages and updation made accordingly.


 * If any author does not log in for specific period of time the article may be alloted to another editor or taken up by adminstrator or it can be locked and put up as library content which can be edited by any administrator.


 * This would add international standards as one expects on Wikipedia and also encourge authors to provide more contribution.

Anyway still it is a huge effort by Wikipedia to maintain such a huge collection of articles, it does not matter if a few articles get deleted or vandalised or removed from Wikipedia just because some pov of some editors. I understand to gain something one has to loose something. It is perfectly alright for all administrators and other authorities not to do anything and watch an article getting ripped of part by part. After all Wikipedia is with all, by all and for all. So nobody takes any responsibility. My sympathies are with the policies of Wikipedia. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Trout everyone involved in this silly edit war, which through the previous discussion, a few talk pages, an attempted RFAR, and then back here, and has wasted an enormous amount of editor's time. Suggest dispute resolution or mediation might be a better way forward than continuing this quasi-legalistic spat.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:05, 13 March 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.