Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 30: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Piggate: comm
Piggate: closing as endorsed early per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure)
Line 34: Line 34:




====[[:Piggate]]====
====[[:Piggate]] (closed)====
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* '''[[:Piggate]]''' – '''Decision endorsed'''. Closing early per [[WP:SNOW]]. <small>([[Wikipedia:NACD#Non-administrators_closing_discussions|non-admin closure]])</small> – [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC) <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{DRV links|Piggate|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggate|article=}}
:{{DRV links|Piggate|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggate|article=}}
This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to [[WP:GNG]]. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of '''keep''' [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to [[WP:GNG]]. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of '''keep''' [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Line 60: Line 68:
* '''Endorse''' and snow close: each side had legitimate arguments and "no consensus" was well within the closer's region of discretion. (I would have !voted merge if I had seen it.) [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' and snow close: each side had legitimate arguments and "no consensus" was well within the closer's region of discretion. (I would have !voted merge if I had seen it.) [[User:BethNaught|BethNaught]] ([[User talk:BethNaught|talk]]) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' I would have happily seen the closer go further, to suggest he went to far in favour of not keeping the article seems like the opinion of those who want to keep this very poor very recentism attack article on the UK PM.♫ [[User:RichardWeiss|RichardWeiss]] [[User talk:RichardWeiss|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/RichardWeiss|contribs]] 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' I would have happily seen the closer go further, to suggest he went to far in favour of not keeping the article seems like the opinion of those who want to keep this very poor very recentism attack article on the UK PM.♫ [[User:RichardWeiss|RichardWeiss]] [[User talk:RichardWeiss|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/RichardWeiss|contribs]] 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archive of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the page listed in the heading. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

Revision as of 01:38, 3 October 2015

Prophet's Day‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Kind attention: Onel5969, Caeciliusinhorto, Lfstevens, BattyBot, Jackninja5, Northamerica1000, Iqsrb722, Messiaindarain, Jonesey95, Maproom, Hmainsbot1, Sandstein, AnomieBOT, Everymorning, Worldbruce, Spirit of Eagle

Hi all! I were engage in different issues and failed to watch the discussion on the page Prophet's Day‎. Moreover, to claim for a deletation review is very new to me. Somehow, I am here to submit my demand for a deletation review regarding the page Prophet's Day‎.
Though, earlier was acknowledged about the article Mawlid, I have created Prophet's Day as a separate article because:
In the very easy form, first to say, Mawlid is a celebration that depends on the Lunar Calendar (Muslim calendar or Hijri calendar / AH) meanwhile, Prophet's Day is the celebration that observes in the aspect of Solar Calendar (Gregorian / AD). Here, the almost 11 Days of difference between a lunar and solar calendar should be considerable.
Secondly, the ceremony Mawlid has been celebrating as a National program since Hijri 4th century and as international program since Hijri seventh century. In contrary, the Prophet's day is being celebrated since 2013. Therefore, it is a quite different program.
Moreover, the Islamic Calendar did not exist at the time when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) appeared in the worldly life. According to historical analysis, Prophet (pbuh) appeared in 570 AD (Julian Calendar Era) it means, the (Gregorian / AD) began since 769 years before his advent. In contrary, the Hijri Calendar even has never introduced by the entire lifetime of Prophet (pbuh). It has been being countdown since 17 year back from its beginning, commemorating the year of migration (from Makkah to Madina) although, initiated/ inaugurated/ introduced 7 years later than the Prophet (buph) passed away.
It clarify that, the Islamic Calendar, it-self, is not a calendar initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) own-self. Therefore, the demand of celebrating a ceremony according to the earlier calendar, the solar calendar- Gregorian is more preferable than the lunar. It is quite different.
There have much more difference between even the season/monsoon. Because of being celebrated according to the lunar calendar, after each 2/4 years, the program become observed in a quite different season. Aside, Prophet's day, as it is being observed according to solar calendar, will remain in same season/monsoon each year. Never change it. Therefore, a difference between these two programs really exists.
Mawlid as being celebrated based on the converted day 12th Rabi-I, It can be celebrated in January, March, July or any month in rotation. It was converted depending on the sustaining other calendars like Julian, Roman or more. But the Prophet's Day is being celebrated based on the really existing calendar in that era that is Julian (Presently Gregorian) so, that, it's date and time will never be changed in the ever future.
I personally am working with the subject Sufism since 1996, contributing on Wikipedia for two years. Most of my works are trusted and stable at bn.wikipedia in fact, you may watch my contribution log. Above all these are my own opinion since I have been writing on the issue and lately following the discussions behind the article Mawlid. In fact, from my perception, in the above all circumstance, both articles should remain as two individual articles holding individual identity in parallel to Father's day or Mother's day or even the Women's day (International Women's Day). However, first two articles or second two articles can be merged in one but will be improper. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Piggate (closed)