Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiislam (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   delete. I have discounted non policy based arguments and there is a clear policy based consensus to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

An apparent attack article on a website, no reliable sourcing for notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The references listed throughout this piece are all Verifiable and Notable sources and their online availability, but they are also available in hard copy form.
 * KeepThe Majority of this article's information was taken Straight From the Source at http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam Therefore it IS NOT A PERSONAL REFLECTION, and Not even Close to "an apparent attack", as NatGertler has suggested; but most information on this site directly from the site's "About Us" page, or it is from the sources They list as their sources.


 * Keep These sources are listed to Directly support the information provided so that people can understand the site listed, and especially it's separateness from Wikipedia. I have changed that to word "anti" to "critique" as per their claim. This entry is meant to be INFORMATIVE. It is not an opinion of the author... it is Not an analysis. This article is important for people who find the site WikiIslam and believe it to be in association with Wikipedia and also who believe it to be an unbiased documentary of Islam. It is neither of these, and lovers of Wikipedia need to be aware.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam https://archive.org/stream/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslationEnglish/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslation#page/n0/mode/2up http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/ http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam https://archive.org/stream/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslationEnglish/Quran-SaheehInternationalTranslation#page/n0/mode/2up http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/ http://quranproject.org/40-Hadith-on-the-Quran--575-d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Freedom_International#cite_note-5 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.wikiislam.net RichardDawkins.net; GreenProphet.com; Africa Today: Culture, Economics, Religion, Security, Dr. Heather Deegan, Disaster Management and Human Health Risk III: Reducing Risk, Improving Outcomes, Prof. Carlos Brebbia, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, Dr. Stefan Kirchner. --DawnshineKEEP (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--Dawnshine KEEP(talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)KEEP --Dawnshine (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of citations for verification THROUGHOUT the piece... so How is that valid in your desire to have it deleted?
 * Of the actual links you provide, you're linking to WikiIslam itself, which cannot establish its own notability; to a translation of the Quran, to a Quran project page, and to the front page of sahih-bukhari.com, none of which mention WikiIslam; to a Wikipedia page (and Wikipedia is not a reliable source), to Alexa, which is a database and does not connote notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I link to WikiIslam itself when I am referencing their own sites description of what they are "About", because those are Not my words I must reference them in the link to their "About Us" page, and people who are critical enough to check the references out, and Everyone should be, will be able to read the WikiIslam sites description of themselves and also understand they are not related to Wikipedia. Because WikiIslam reports using the Quran and hadiths, including the Sahih Bukhari, as some of its Main points of reference in it's opinion, and I mention this in the page, then it only is professional to create links to these published works.  The fact that I mention these resources which again is from the WikiIslam site mentioning them, It is proper to cite a proper source for them, and of course They do not mention WikiIslam because they are ancient works which WikiIslam says they use in the support of their ideals; WikiIslam site does not do this, for the purpose of full disclosure to the reader of the page on WikiIslam, those sources mentioned Should have a link to direct people to them; but this page is ABOUT the WikiIslam site.  It is imperative when writing on a subject to list the sources involved in the description.  The readers may not know anything about the sources existence. That is the only way to show them as valid sources... How is this incorrect??  Alexa.com site is mentioned by WikiIslam in its Own reports on it's site usage, with a link; Again, since I mention this which is straight from the "About Us" page of WikiIslam, I listed the Link... This is BASIC proper writing citation, I mentioned the site, the site is an integral part of WikiIslam's description of itself, so Yes, of course a link is needed to that site.--Dawnshine (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None of which addresses the concern that we don't have links that establish notability of the site. Instead, you seem to be linking to things for the original research involved in your attacks. And before you claim that you are not doing attacks, just listing things put forth in their About Us page, where in their "About Us" do they make such assertions as "books containing the words and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, also considered important in the basic fundamental Islam ideology and doctrine, are not supporting of the articles in any way. If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[8] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well."? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I consolidated some of the references, however the last "reference" seems to be a list of sources, not a single source, but the citations are incomplete. If these cite WikiIslam then they should be filled out as complete citations so that others can retrieve them. Also, I note that WikiIslam is not on the List_of_wikis, and perhaps should be, since many of those wikis have pages on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am still working to get those last references that are supposed to list that website as their resource properly, so I can cite them properly. I will try to get this page to meet the Wikipedia standards before the day is over. Yes, the suggestion for being on the list of wikis is excellent and will help people separate it from wikipedia as well, thanks so much.--Dawnshine (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC) *Keep

FOGIVE ME for not knowing as much as you two OBVIOUSLY do about how this works. I was trying to follow the rules that said if you want to keep add "keep" to your discussion... I'm signing my name (also still figuring out) so of course, I am not trying to "fool" anyone Deb. But, thanks all for your vote of confidence... Your objections are not entirely incorrect, but certainly not correct either.... and seem to be subject to your personal desire to not have this page on Wikipedia, despite many similar errors in other Wikipedia pages. But, the sources I list are not invalid. And as I said also, I am improving the citations and Still working on that to get this page as perfect as possible, considering it is just a page about the existence of a website.... Dawnshine (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)--Dawnshine (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very little in the way of reliable references and lots of original research Deb (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How are the references "very little" on reliability? Again they are from the direct source, as this is an informative on that source, as well the sources that site references as to it's popularity, AND of course internal links to Wiki pages on the subjects that site also references about it's subject for creation of the site. Most of the information is DIRECTLY FROM THE SITE THIS PAGE IS DESIGNED TO INFORM ABOUT. What could be more reliable about the purpose and subject of a site, than the site's self-description itself?  This is an Important page to have so people searching for Wikipedia articles do Not confuse the website WikiIslam with Wikipedia's pages on that same subject. --Dawnshine (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) If there is "original research" outside of attempting to create accurate and proper citations, I will remedy that issue.--Dawnshine (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please try to understand - the fact that you created the article doesn't give you an infinite number of "votes" and the closing admin won't be fooled into thinking that you are more than one person. In order for the website to be notable, it must meet the notability criteria for websites, which entails providing multiple independent references. So far you have failed to do this.  Deb (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - WikiIslam is not a reliable source for establishing the reliability of WikiIslam; in fact, as a user-edited site, it's not a reliable source in general, for the same reasons why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, you don't need to keep adding your Keep notations to your messages; your !vote is already listed. If for some reason you're changing your !vote, then list the new vote and strike through the previous one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That there are problems on other pages does not mean that we should ignore the problems with this page. I encourage you to help address the problems that you find on other pages. I spend a lot of time doing that myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do intend to do that. This is the first time I've written anything for Wikipedia; otherwise my contributions have only been grammar correction and money. So... I am very new to this and DO want to create a proper page and feel there is a definite need for this page on Wikipedia... So that being said, with the faults that this page has/had (as I am actively attempting to correct it) I think a call for Deletion is overboard... This is not a soapbox for my opinion. And the 7 additional associations about problems with this page: Category:All articles needing additional references Category:All articles needing style editing Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability Category:Articles for deletion Category:Articles needing additional references from August 2014 Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from August 2014 Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing from August 2014 Also seems a bit over board.... Does this page really have ALL of those problems??? I am willing and capable of writing a decent piece... so please assist with guiding criticism instead of bombarding with rejection that will not improve this page at all or just get it deleted because of people apparently not wanting this page to exist for whatever reason.--Dawnshine (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple things to realize about those categories:
 * They are not being carefully crafted for this article by some editor. Rather, they are put on there through automatic processes. For example, when I used a feature of the editing tool Twinkle to mark this page as having unclear notability, that added the two categories about "unclear notability" (I'm not sure why it ended up being two.
 * These categories are not intended to be a punishment or to brand the article as unclean; they are actually a call for other editors to help. An editor who wants to add references to articles that need it can go While the tags at the top of the article are visible to anyone reading the article (again intended as a call for help), the categories you list are invisible to the standard reader of the article.
 * As to whether the article has all these problems, you've really got three problems (needs additional references, needs style editing, the topic has unclear notability) and a status (that there is an Articles For Deletion discussion going on about this... which is clearly true, here it is.) The unclear notability is true - there references currently in the article do not show that it meets the notability criteria for articles about websites. I appreciate that you have recently tried to expand the links, but the key sentence in that notability guideline is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." So your references from WikiIslam itself do not count toward that, as it is not independent of itself; your reference to the old Dawkins site doesn't count because it said all of 13 words about the site - that's trivial. And your reference to various articles or books using information from the site do not count, because they are not talking about the site, merely using the site as a reference work. The need for additional references and the style problems overlap, as they are both grounded in the point of view problem the article has - when you include an unsourced statement like "If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[6] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well", that does not appear to be some neutral analysis from some reliable source (hence a lack-of-reference problem), but rather your own personal analysis, which is outside the style of the content for Wikipedia (hence a style problem).
 * As for why editors are seeking to delete it, I think both editors that have cast that !vote have made it clear that they don't think this subject qualifies for Wikipedia due to the notability problems. That's actually probably the most common reason for article deletion; it's not some sort of special targeting of this article. And if you manage to find multiple significant articles in reliable sources about WikiIslam, that will show the notability and certainly my own delete !vote will be retracted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much for clarifying all that to me. I've added a reference that seems to meet the criteria http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11562-007-0002-2 Vol.1, Iss.1, pg 53-67 ... this is in a professional journal which specifies this site in-particular...and am seeking more as well, to cover the possible point of view issue... maybe that just needs to be re-worded. I've found many other resources that discuss WikiIslam... but most of them do not seem to meet notability requirements, but I'm not totally for sure. I will try to make sure they meet that list (thanks for listing link, sometimes I get lost on here and have a hard time getting back to those guideline pages as there are many pages referencing or other). Dawnshine (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Also doesn't this site count http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.wikiislam.net ? Still, I will search for more and be sure to check the list. Thanks again.
 * No, Alexa doesn't count toward notability. They are a database on just about every domain, automatically generated. As such, it doesn't show that something is notable, merely that it exists. That journal article is a good step, but it is just one, we do need multiple. (In fact, if you review the discussion the last time that an article on WikiIslam was deleted through an AFD discussion - you'll see a link to that discussion at the top of this page -- you'll find that that journal article was the primary defense, and it proved in sufficient in itself to prevent the deletion.) If you can find another article on the level of significance of that journal article, you're in much better position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (Weak Keep): The user who created the article is most likely not familiar with the policies of Wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability and for a website, that has been linked in this discussion already: Notability (web) which says "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. ... This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms". So we need multiple reliable non-trivial sources. So far the user who created the article (Dawnshine; page history) has not provided any reliable sources with significant coverage. If anyone wants to save the article, there may be some reliable sources found on their About page: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam#References . You will have to look for yourself and see if anything can qualify for a reliable source with non-trivial coverage. The website has been the subject of two research papers by the same author (Goran Larson). His name is present on the references list there and the author of the article has used one of those papers . This may or may not qualify for WP:RS. I personally dont believe there is enough non-trivial coverage found in multiple reliable sources. Other than that the author is also violating WP:OR (this has also been pointed out above) by making statements like these:
 * "However, if the valid resources supporting it's articles are researched for accuracy, one will quickly find that almost All of it's references to the"
 * "If such research is conducted, it is clear the site's misinformation prove it's Faith Freedom International[6] criticize-Islam roots, and the purpose of the WikiIslam site as well."
 * "And therefore, does have a strong history with Faith Freedom International"
 * "although the support of these resources to their unique critique's on Islam is questionable, as often it does not reflect their opinion."
 * In addition: "however most recent data about WikiIslam.net on Alexa.com shows a decline in visits," - This is false. Alexa's traffic ranking shows an increase in ranking (see the global rank number).
 * Everyone here knows that the website itself cannot be used as a measure of notability so all that goes out. So in its present shape the article probably does not qualify for the policies unless additional non-trivial reliable sources are found and after that all the OR will have to be removed and non-reliable sources and self-published sources (the website itself) should be removed or reduced significantly. I suggest the author should move the content to a temporary page until they can read and understand Wikipedia policies and then work on the article and give it another try later. --Hallonicw (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Now there are four articles from peer reviewed journals and also someone did a nice clean up of my apparent bias and lacking. Thanks so much! And also thanks for suggesting the "temporary page" thing... That will be a huge help for me. Although since this page has been cleaned up so well and now has 4 notable sources, I don't think I will have to do that with this particular page (1st for me). What say y'all? Dawnshine (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Oh yeah and I did at first check all the referenced sites listed by Wikiislam, but almost all of them are blogs or other website communities that feel the need to defend against or criticize the Wikiislam site, not necessarily in an academic manner (unfortunately), so they didn't seem to fit the "notable" guidelines and I've not listed them at all.Dawnshine (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two research papers with non-trivial coverage so now we have multiple non-trivial reliable sources but they are by the same author (Goran Larson) which makes the situation a little weak (I think). The other two papers give trivial coverage, such as only mentioning the URL of one of the pages so they dont help much for the requirement of "non-trivial" coverage. It would be nice if there are additional sources. --Hallonicw (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The two papers are same author but different journals, which does carry some weight (we're sort of at one-and-a-half here, in some measures). I'm dealing with some temporary physical pain which is interrupting smooth thought processes, so I'm not going to make a decision on recasting my !vote at the moment. I agree that if we do end up with a "delete", this would be a good candidate for userfication (that's a temporary page in your own space, Dawnshine), as the editor could keep an eye for new sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your physical pain and it's affect on thinking (mind-body wars ever constant it seems). I think that I will try the temporary page thing if I can figure it out... I still back this page being in existence, but it is hard to find any decent coverage of it... I can't believe wikiquotes lives up beyond this, or pages like American Thinker, and I could probably find hundreds that have not more than 2 notable sources with them as a Main topic (instead of just citation of a short reference, which wikiislam has plenty of in various reputable sources)... Regardless, I think this page is very important to have. Wikiislam.net is Extremely popular and comes up first, second, and third on most searches under the subjects related to its commentary, Islam. It is because of the confusion people have in believing a "wiki" site to be related to wikipedia, I think this wikiislam page is necessary here, on Wikipedia... And since wikipedia is an information site, the existence of such a popular site as wikiislam should be something people CAN look up on Wikipedia... especially since wikipedia has dedicated much of its pages to various aspects of the religion that wikiislam covers, even though it does not top wikiislam in a search. It is something to consider because of the masses who use wikipedia and do Not realize there is a difference or no affiliation between these sites, and because of the different standards between the sites on what type of information is published...it is very important for people to have more opportunity to see that they are not affiliated by having this page here. I don't know how to explain that, but as a wikipedia fan, I believe such confusion to be a problem that this page could remedy easily most of the time. Dawnshine (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are mostly all invalid reasons to make a page on the subject (differentiating between Wikipedia and wikiislam; search results ranking; website being popular). The one and only reason that has to be satisfied is notability (non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources). I think the article could be kept if its kept a stub with some valid sources (there are two papers and the site's own pages could be used for some 'about' info). A lot of OR has been taken out so thats good. I leave it up to the admins. You can keep a copy in your userspace. --Hallonicw (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutral - as the person who started this AFD, I am switching my !vote to "neutral"; the amount of sourcing is on the fuzzy edge of acceptable, and I'm not feeling up to determining where in that fuzz the edge is. I reserve the right to change my mind further before the end of the AFD, of course, and there is further work to be done to address the focus of the article. (Naming wikis "wikisomething" is pretty standard in the wiki world, and the use of Mediawiki software is common; we don't need to be making a big deal about what-this-isn't as long as we're explaining what it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of these sources are very poor, and "cited by a notable person" (eg. Dawkins) doesn't confer notability. Some of the journals are good, but I don't think that constitutes enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I could be persuaded if someone with access to Contemporary South Asia and Journal of Religion and Popular Culture could show that their coverage was more than a brief "mention" as the article says. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to seek out sources... I do have access to most of these journals and have downloaded many of the articles, although I have not read through them all completely to see how much exact coverage is on this site.... But it is a very popular site and if anyone is going to have mention of it's existence, an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, should indeed. I will save a copy in my userspace just in case... are you referring to the "sandbox" I was not sure, and I also was afraid that saving it there would prompt it to be added as a page again... ? But, yes I would like to have that, just in case. However, as there is a great number of wiki pages and many of them listed on Wikipedia as such, even if they are quite lacking in being noticed by "notable sources", this seems like another good reason for this page to exist and be part of that acknowledgement. However, there are actually 5 peer reviewed articles that mention Wikiislam described on this page, and 3 of them definitely go into more detail about content on the site, and a couple of books with reputable publishers that utilize the website's content. I have been reading through the notability requirements on Wikipedia... and it seems to state that if the web-content itself receives notice by a notable source, that makes the web content notable. And this page is for the purpose of WikiIslam's content, not anything else... It is truly a very indepth, extensive, massive site that is utilized for it's content primarily.... by many sources, including notable ones who quote and reference it in their own works. This is not disputable even if someone has not written a book specifically on the site... as most are written on the subject matter that the site encompasses and expands upon, and thus the content found therein is what is written on in some fashion. Dawnshine (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The vast majority of sources mention the subject in passing or merely cite wikiislam; many of these sources are self-published. These can be removed so let's focus on what remains. There are two sources that make Wiiislam the main topic. Contemporary Islam is reliable, has a respectable editorial board, and published by a respectable academic publisher. But does every article in a journal deserve a wikipedia page? It isn't clear that Wikiislam is the subject but rather a case study for the subject, the subject being Internet representation or misrepresentation of Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I generally don't try to use the adjective "strong" during AfDs as it makes one seem too pushy. In this case, however, it is warranted. Of the sources which aren't links to Wikiislam itself, some are simply irrelevant to the subject. It's very clear that this is just some non-notable off-site Wikia for a few people and there's no justification for this article at all. At all. Hence the "strong" adjective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)



One's opinion of a "respectable editorial board" doesn't take away the fact that it is academically accepted as a peer reviewed journal... Or there would Constantly be a dispute about a peer journal's significance and worthiness in academia projects... That's why it is already limited to Peer reviewed journals... And "does every article in a journal deserve a wikipedia"? Great question... why don't you sleuth through the pages here and find some truly non-notable pages that have never been up for deletion? WikiIslam is Not an "off-site" it is The source that people of all varieties of works use as a source for their work, some less notable than others no doubt, but non the less extremely popular, not at all for only a few people... Everyone who has Ever done any research into the religion of Islam will find themselves on this site (since it's creation). There are entire blog pages dedicated to this occurrence, and as listed (not a full list) plenty of published works, plenty notable as well as not, that use this site's content for some of their main objectives in their work.Dawnshine (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Strong" delete? Seriously? As if this page is somehow totally degraded,meaningless babble? No. I don't think so. There are THREE peer reviewed journals that have articles specifically related to the content on Wikiislam: Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, Contemporary Islam, Cyber Orient two peer reviewed journals that use it's content as a source for their work, Journal of Religious and Popular Culture and Contemporary South Asia; there is another notable British magazine Emel Magazine with a site specific article, and a book by Routledge publishing and one by Palgrave Macmillan, notable publishers, that use the site's content specifically for part of their work. There are several other peer reviewed journals I am reviewing now that utilize WikiIslam's content for their work. This More than qualifies according to Wikipedia's standards. And thanks all who work with cleaning up my style of writing, as I am not accustomed to writing in encyclopedic form and can't quite tell where to edit it. "if the web-content itself receives notice by a notable source, that makes the web content notable" Dawnshine (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dawnshine, that thing that you just put in quotes isn't an actual quote; it appears to be a reworking of "If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable" from our notability guidelines on web content... but that's just being used to explain that web content does not inherit notability. It does not mean that the converse is true. I can say "if it doesn't come from France, then it isn't real champagne", but that doesn't mean that all things that come from France are real champagne. And that "Great question... why don't you sleuth through the pages here and find some truly non-notable pages that have never been up for deletion?" gambit just doesn't work; if we cannot address perceived problems in one place because there are also perceived problems in other places, then no problems will ever get addressed. --17:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Important note: The closer will most likely notice that of the six "keep" votes, five are from the same person (who is also the creator of the article). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dawnshine, the Baltic journal is a trivial mention (a link to the site's article). All that can be done is to hope that more non-trivial mentions can be made. You would increase the chances of the article being kept if you deleted everything else but the two journals and then keep only a small amount of "about" info. In other words if you try to pass off trivial mentions as references it weakens the article. You should copy the text now into your userspace to work on as it may soon be deleted. Also your multiple "keeps" dont help. You need to spend a lot of time being familiar with wikipedia policies and how people conduct their business here (false quotes as pointed out should not be done) and how to use the English language. Quotes are for quoting something, not for emphasizing your personal viewpoint. --Hallonicw (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the administrator will closely evaluate all of this information (including the "keeps"), all the opinions here, and all of the efforts for improvement that have went into the page from it's initial creation (and hopefully many more will improve upon it in time), and make a good decision about its worthiness of Wikipedia.Dawnshine (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Also, I was quoting myself from an earlier post here, so the the quotes are not from my lacking in English grammar, but thanks for the hate. And, if you had actually Read through all these arguments, you would have noticed that I did not understand the "keep" thing initially. And, there is no greater way to learn how to do something, than to try and do it and making mistakes. Reading through all of Wikipedia's policies and their various pages, helps some, but can be overwhelming and confusing. And, I certainly don't mind valid criticism and referrals to help me understand, without superficial metaphors. Dawnshine (talk) 21:16, 19 September 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.