Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succession issue


 * 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 comments not prefaced with "delete" are mostly incomprehensible.  Sandstein  10:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Answers mentioned below. Araz5152 (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Succession issue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason Ftutocdg (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Pure propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. Araz 5152 is the only contributor with misleading and tendentious reference. To understand : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Burhanuddin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufaddal_Saifuddin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzaima_Qutbuddin
 * violates WP:V
 * violates WP:NOR
 * Do not respect Notability criteria

Understanding shia succession

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

Ftutocdg (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 20.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 17:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You have put this article for deletion too. First you put Qutbi Bohra article for deletion. Now this also. The wikipedia articles you have given a link to are modified by you. You have till date made no edits in wikipedia but just put atricles to deletion and deleted or vandalized content. Are you strictly a Khuzaima fan. The way you are going on and vandalising content of Dawoodi Bohra sites. And you think nobody will stop you? I am new to Wikipedia, but in every organisation there are people to stop or atleast control such behavior. And today i am impressed you did not vandalise this article like you did to Qutbi Bohra article many times. As i have mentioned in this article i have mentioned every thing categorically and with references to prove the same. The claims of Ftutocdg is again his point of view. Araz5152 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Never mind that this isn't the first or last succession issue to come along: the content of the article is an argument for one position in whatever is going on, and not even remotely encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The details regarding succession (belief) mentioned is to make the reader understand what the situation is as it is shown from the outside, to the media and public in general. But (the truth) will clear all your doubts that this is not just another succession issue but a carefully planned strategy to create a spiritual leader for a religious sect that does not have a spiritual leader. You might find it hard to believe as to how can a religious sect exsist without a spiritual leader? This sect did since 1977 from the day it was formed. Now under the guise of a succession issue it is trying to create a spiritual leader for itself. A historic event that has never happened in the history of mankind should sure have a mention in Wikipedia. I have also provided as many reference as possible in this article. I request the readers to understand and comprehend the issue and not dismiss it off as just another succession issue. Araz5152 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have put this article for deletion too. First you put Qutbi Bohra article for deletion. Now this also. The wikipedia article you have given a link to are modified by you. You have till date made no edits in wikipedia but just put atricles to deletion and deleted or vandalized content. Are you strictly a Khuzaima fan. The way you are going on and vandalising content of Dawoodi Bohra sites. And you think nobody will stop you? I am new to Wikipedia, but in every organisation there are people to stop or atleast control such behavior. And today i am impressed you did not vandalise this article like you did to Qutbi Bohra article many times. As i have mentioned in this article i have mentioned every thing categorically and with references to prove the same. The claims of Ftutocdg is again his point of view. Araz5152 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The details regarding succession (belief) mentioned is to make the reader understand what the situation is as it is shown from the outside, to the media and public in general. But (the truth) will clear all your doubts that this is not just another succession issue but a carefully planned strategy to create a spiritual leader for a religious sect that does not have a spiritual leader. You might find it hard to believe as to how can a religious sect exsist without a spiritual leader? This sect did since 1977 from the day it was formed. Now under the guise of a succession issue it is trying to create a spiritual leader for itself. A historic event that has never happened in the history of mankind should sure have a mention in Wikipedia. I have also provided as many reference as possible in this article. I request the readers to understand and comprehend the issue and not dismiss it off as just another succession issue. Araz5152 (talk) 17:03, 21 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, NorthAmerica1000 03:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially per Mangoe. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As i have mentioned before this article was put for deletion by Ftutocdg in his anger of not being able to get the article Qutbi Bohra deleted. He does not have any concern with this article. As regards to the content of the article, as mentioned earlier it is about a sect of a religion that is trying to get for itself a spiritual head. This is a first of its kind event in the history of mankind. I sincerely hope that the persons reading the article understand the situation and make their decisions accordingly.

I again would like to assert that this article was not put for AFD by Ftutocdg due to any issues with this article or its content but to remove the frustration of not being able to get the Qutbi Bohra article deleted. Araz5152 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK. The issue of succession is being delt with in Mufaddal Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Sam Sailor Sing 18:45, 12 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.