Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaryanism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 15:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Qaryanism

This is an article about a new religious movement written by an insider, this makes it original research and unverifiable. Members of the project seem to be against publicity at this early stage. For this reason, some want it deleted, but, if verifiability can be achieved, it might simply need improvement. --Gareth Hughes 10:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. I'm curious about how you can be sure that this was written by an "insider." I'm also unsure just what should constitute an "insider." If work by insiders is to be considered "original research," does that mean that a supporter of a political party cannot write about that party, for example? Or a mathematician about mathematics? Personally, I would far rather leave the article there, but have someone knowledgeable do some heavy NPOV work on it. David Cannon 10:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As per David arguments. The discussion page can serve to discuss with the editors about the article. Svest 11:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The editors seem not ready to discuss anything. Indeed, The person who wrote this aritcle and the other article about Qaryanic Aramaic does not have the support of other Qaryanic believers in his free exposure of our religious practices and beliefs, as per User:BarShamashel below. Svest 09:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & clean-up -- I don't believe it should be removed because project leaders want it removed, and I believe it should be cleaned up. However, verifiability is almost impossible. --Gareth Hughes 11:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, verifiability can be done in the discussion page. Svest 11:56, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unverifiable advertisement for non-notable micro-movement. Google gets exactly 1 hit, and that is from a Wikipedia mirror. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As an adherent of Qaryanism, I can firmly say that the Qaryanic movement is not a movement at all, at least not at this point in time. There are only a few actual "Qaryans", and I place that in quotes because each adherent of Qaryanism is technically a Southern Baptist with Karaite and Aramaic inclinations. The person who wrote this aritcle and the other article about Qaryanic Aramaic does not have the support of other Qaryanic believers in his free exposure of our religious practices and beliefs. I, personally, would like to see some information about Qaryanism (not Qaryanic Aramaic) remain on Wikipedia, but not necessarily in the form of a full article. When I have some time I will try to condense the article to a short summary paragraph and place it inside another article about modern Messianic or Nazarene movements. User:BarShamashel

• Delete. The only Google hit for "Qaryanism" is a Wikipedia mirror. Even our own page doesn't show up. See also Qaryanic. This guy is making it up as he goes along. RickK 21:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified and notability established. Gamaliel 21:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well written, but needs sources so that it can be verified. Non-verifiable = non-encyclopedic. No google hits is a very bad sign. Quale 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable and probably in too small a scale anyway to be important - Skysmith 09:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 11:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-admitted non-entity. Tomer ^TALK 20:45, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although I don't know if there are any REAL follower of this doctrine, it is worth to keep it. unsigned vote from 129.107.37.87

• Why keep a doctrine that no one has ever followed? Gamaliel 17:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unsigned vote from 68.226.229.230
  • note: this delete vote was made by a user at the same IP addy as the original author of the article itself

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.