Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qutbi Bohra (3rd 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 keep. The result is kept, 1 speedy keep vote, plus nominator has withdrawn nomination. I also note that reasons given in this AFD was not very clear. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 04:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qutbi Bohra

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Article is work of fiction. Mufaddalqn (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have had two No consensus closings within the last three weeks, should we not then give the AfD discussions a rest for a little while (Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion) and deal with the content issues in the article? Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although this sect does not officially exist, the main problem remains the content of the article is completely false / fictional / defamatory. I think the best solution is to rewrite the article starting with a neutral content. For example, from this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qutbi_Bohra&oldid=597098906 --Ftutocdg (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Speedy close. There remains no consensus. I agree with Ftutocdg's suggestion on how to deal with the article, though I am a little puzzled by what is meant as a sect "officially existing". If some people claim they think differently from another group of people in a religious movement, and call themselves by a distinctive name, they've formed a sect. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Reason given for deletion doesn't match any laid by Wikipedia deletion policy. I request nominator to familiarize himself with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and few well established community consensus, for now Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: "Withdrawn by nominator" After having discussion with my fellow editors this article is up for rewrite and cleanup.Mufaddalqn (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.