 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As E.M.Gregory (indeffed for sockpuppeting) commented in the deletion discussion dated 29 May 2019, I was indeed "a very new editor" at the time of creating the previously deleted page on 17 May 2019 and certainly failed to "make a cogent case for notability". E.M.Gregory was right. Their claim is mostly evident in the previous deletion discussion where I had failed, in every respect, to show minimum level of acquaintance with Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. I was “such an new editor”, in Gregory's words, that I did not even “know the difference between a subject who is briefly quoted by a journalist, and a piece of journalism that covers the subject in significant depth”. Gregory was rightly pointing to WP:SIGCOV at that moment of which, of course, I had no knowledge of. In a way I had even failed to assume good faith on Onel5969's (nominator) part as well to whom I still owe an apology despite my contention that their nomination failed to appreciate the Study Quran and was without rigorous enquiry. I suppose I have been forgiven because the mental state of a panicked new editor is not unknown to them. I learned a lot from that discussion. However, it still remains a sad story to me especially because of my failure to defend the case in a guided manner and expose bad faith on E.M.Gregory's part. Throughout the process, Gregory mostly relied on false and exaggerated claims in order perhaps to marginalize the discussion which is evident from their remarks. Their arguments and analysis, I believe, had a positive effect on the outcome of the discussion itself for they were the only major contributor to the entire discussion. Statements such as "Note that I cannot find any book reviews of The Study Quran, the page [The Study Quran] is sourced to remarks about the translation by a bluelinked Imam, and two articles in WP:RS about the translation's possible, potential political impact. But no reviews in scholarly or general circulation publications. And no articles about any actual political impact", and "those 2 books. (I had copypasted them to search them and deleted in error) Ibn Al-'Arabī and Islamic Intellectual Culture: From Mysticism to Philosophy pub. date 2016 but no reviews come up in a JSTOR search." could not be without some ulterior motives because a large number of reviews were still available then for the books in question through a plain search (even in JSTOR). And they themself concurrently admitted it somewhere else without bringing their discovery into the discussion. This was just one or two instances of misstatements among many. I won’t go into the details. This could easily be contradicted by anyone with an intention to explore the truth. I failed to do that myself because of my inexperience and unfamiliarity. Actually I was clueless as to what should have been done in order to save the article. Anyway, as I became convinced over time that the outcome of that deletion process was seriously misguided, initially I wanted to go for a review. I recreated the page instead in order to avoid complexities associated with the review process. Subject's credentials remain the same as before (at least that is what I find). I have just added lots of book reviews to the page (although it is essentially a stub now). Hope that this time the page will survive the test. However, I will urge interested editors especially @Onel5969: to start another Afd discussion in case they find themselves at odds with my understanding of notability. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
