Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Umar McConnell

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. This is not, as the article author suspects, because of ignorance or prejudice; whether an article is kept in Wikipedia is not decided on the basis of editors' personal knowledge or preferences, but by asking whether other people, independent of the subject, have found it important and significant enough to write about. The notability test used is whether there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The unanimous consensus of the other editors taking part in this debate is that, in this case, there is not - not just that none is presented in the article, but none found by searching. And no, as closing administrator I am not paid by the State Department, or by anyone else. JohnCD (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

James Umar McConnell

James Umar McConnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

NPOV and peacock issues aside, the subject of this article does not appear to have any media coverage in independent, reliable sources per WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Empty Buffer (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• The lack of understanding of traditional Sufi training is very much apparent and at the core for this propsed deletion. Notablity to this editor, constitutes academic training from universities. McConnell received his Ijaaza or Academic Certificate to be an Imam from one of the most recognized Islamic Universities in the World, Abu Nour University, but he correctly notes the certificate is not worth the paper it is written on, according to real heavenly or traditional Sufi methods of teaching, something few people understand. Even so-called Islamic Scholars trained at the instittuions have little understanding of traditional Prophetic methods of teaching. To remove McConnel from the field of "Islamic Scholars" such as Zaid Shakir, who celebrates his attendance at the same school, Abu Nour University, but never actually attended classes, and the likes of hateful and ugly teachings of Bilal Phillips is to deprive Wikipedia readers of the diversity they need to understand the difference between the Sufi methodology and academic titles and degrees offered by businesses.

McConnell, one of only a handful of students, studied for thousands of hours under the guidance and direction of the top Islamic scholars of the day, Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani and Sheikh Adnan Kabbani of the Distiguished Naqshbandi Sufi Order. As stated in the introduction, as to avoid this fiasco, McConnell is trained not to assume titles or degrees as proof of his teaching. McConnel could have opted like others to run after degrees of importance recognized by Wikipedia as real refrences and learning, but this is not the Sufi way, nor was it the manner of teaching from all of the Prophets and Saints.

How does an engineer and military buff come off entering this subject area so quickly and creating conflict before even considering the subject at hand or asking questions. This is foolishness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) — BeNothing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I have requested constructive comments and feedback and have received no communications, supporting my assertion that this is more about sport and amuzement than thoughtful efforts to improve this article out of a sense to improve this BIO. I have taken the advise already given and have made efforts to correct concerns, adding references, etc. I do hope this is enough. If it is not, then please provide specific comments and concerns with examples in the talk pages and I will do my best to address them. I appreciate constructive input, but have seen none to date. Therefore I am considering this matter resolved and removing the banner. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I've edited it for WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, and the creator has also added some independent, WP:Reliable sources: links to two interviews on Australian ABC television. Notability is still weak, however, and most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, so more work is needed. Empty Buffer (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete There is no evidence at all of independent coverage. Nearly all of the references in the article appear to be to one cite to which McConnell has connections, and there is also at least one reference which at present is a dead link, and two to pages not mentioning McConnell. The arguments given above by BeNothing do not relate remotely to Wikipedia's notability criteria. I suggest that BeNothing may like to read WP:Notability and WP:BIO. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see any independent reliable sources - I can't see any independent sources at all in the refs list, save only the university - and that's a ref to the uni itself. No other indications of notability meet my eyes. BTW, I am not an engineer, just in case the creator thinks I might be, whatever it is that's wrong with engineers. Please do not use words like foolishness before YOU have considered Wikipedia's standards and requirements. Please see WP:RS and WP:GNG. Peridon (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Exceptional Case Sufi Murids are not trained under a certificate or academic standard as has become common in the West. The doctoral degree program was in fact adopted from a traditional "Sufi" education or mentor/student, sheikh/murid methodology. During the dark ages, elite members of western society sent their sons to these traditional learning centers under Ottoman rule, because they were considered to be the very best education available anywhere. In a traditional Sufi teaching environment, there are no grades, memorization, tests, as is commonly understood in the Western method of education. In fact a middle of the road student on an academic level may be the nmost celebrated student because of his pure heart. What is seriously lacking in the a western style of education is the moral component, so important to Sufi training. We only need to look at the NBA programs and Medical Schools focus on academics as opposed to raising honest or noble human beings, to understand why our western society is rapidly deteriorating. To exclude McConnell, is to ignore this traditional method of teaching that was focused on raising whole (holy) human beings above all else. Because there is only the Sheikh to attest to a person’s notoriety or acceptance, the only reference is the Sheikh himself and evidence that the person actually studied under that authorized and noble person. In the past a student need only say I have taken initiation with so and so, and everyone would know and respect that acceptance, or confer with the Sheikh if uncertain. Traditionally, students might sweep the halls for years before a Sheikh would accept them as a student/murid. There is no graduation, certificate or even what has become to be known as an ijaaza. An ijazza, traditionally, was an oral approval. It has turned into a written certificate to compete with the western style of education – but it is wrong. Those who are taught under this system who desire such evidence of their success, over and above the silent approval of a Sheikh, heart to heart, often get the certificate as a further test for their egos. Be careful what you ask for . . . .

So when I point out that you are an engineer, take no offense, I am simply pointing out that you obviously lack even the basic understanding of what it means to be trained under a real Sheikh/Master/ Authorized Guide system. You are not alone, most of the Muslim world now run after universities for degrees - and take a look at the Muslim world!!!! So trained under a system of no certificates, titles, accolades, etc, the only possible verification of a persons notoriety is to ask someone in touch with heavenly stations to tell you if this person has arrived. That not being possible on Wikipedia or among persons who have not be purified and activated the senses of the heart, we must rely upon the amount of hours trained, the level or reputation of the teacher and if the student was accepted. Any student lying about this would be exposed and ostracized very quickly. I am happy to add countless references of who Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani is and who Sheikh Adnan Kabbani is, but they also are not people who require or run after titles and it is counter to the Sufi Way. I also remind you that most of the references and books that filled libraries in the Ottoman empire and can support what is said here - were burned to the ground. There is in fact a student of Sheikh Nazim's, Hisham Kabbani (all over Wikipedia and the Internet), who has worked hard to establish organizations and make the Naqshbandi Way more appealing to the western style of titles and degrees. He claims he received his doctorate in Lefke, Cyprus, at the Naqshbandi University, which is an outright lie. This so-called "university" is a Derga - the house of Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani. I could have perpetuated this lie, referenced those lies and we would not be having this debate. But titles and degrees are not the Sufi way. If wishing to kill this system we should delete McConnell - one of the few examples of what it means to be trained in the traditional Sufi method. Sure, people can come and claim the same, but then they must be judged according to the Sheikh they claim to study under and provide some verification that there was much time spent with that teacher/mentor/sheikh. The interview with Foreign Correspondence, I believe, clearly establishes that McConnell spent much time in the Derga where Sheikh Adnan “taught” and I believe I might be able to find confirmation of his time spent in Cyprus, but again, it is counter to the methodology. McConnell would never provide a letter from his teacher. He is not trained to be someone special, but I believe it is critically important to let one example survive. Otherwise, how will people know the difference?

Not in any way to compare McConnell to Christ, but what were Christ's verifiable references? Give it some thought. On a material level, McConnell had signed contracts with Broadway video to produce the show he was responsible for creating which turned into the most successful genre of television in this decade. He gave all that up for his journey to find truth. If that is not notable, I have a hard time understanding what notable is. Point to another, who gave up certain success to be a weak servant? We need more like him, try not to rob the world of these few remaining examples. Now for fun, go see Bilal Phillips and tell me if he meets your standards. Thank you for the constructive input and changes. I will attempt to do more, but please consider what was said. BeNothing (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the verifiable independent references for Jesus being extremely scanty. However, there is a big follow-up industry that has improved his notability. As to Bilal Phillips, I've added a refimprove tag there. Now for McConnell: there can't be one rule here for Sufis and another for Anabaptists, and yet another for Knee-bending Absolute Anti-Revisionists. If you want to, you can start a Sufipedia - I would think Wikia would host it. At the moment, we have your word as evidence for the claim of notability. I am not saying I doubt your word. I am saying that it does not comply with the requirements here on Wikipedia. Quote: "simply pointing out that you obviously lack even the basic understanding of what it means to be trained under a real Sheikh/Master/ Authorized Guide system". Firstly, how do you know this? Secondly, there is no requirement on Wikipedia to be expert in subjects. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

McConnell meets the criteria of being "worthy of notice". if not because of his direct training from one of the world’s leading Sufi teachers and leader of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order, then because he created the most successful genre of television this decade. Either way he is "worthy of notice" which is the foundation of notability. That standard has been met, with the ABC interviews, Sufi Films website, links to renowned filmmakers, etc.

There not being a requirement to be an expert on a subject to edit it is a big problem with Wikipedia. Even if there is no requirement, self restraint and good judgment should be utilized before entering a discussion or quickly nominating a subject for deletion without even any upfron questions, research or discussion. Wikipedia quickly becomes a popularity contest if it is open to anyone weighing in on any subject. There are as you know, many people hostile to all things Muslim, if majority rules here, we do not have excellence, we have what is popular. People need to show both respect for the "other" and self restraint. So a military buff, started this process, followed by someone who i no longer editing, and canceled their Wiki account. Now we have people voting on a subject they know little or nothing about. If I am wrong, I would love to hear some supportive evidence - the same you are requiring t support McConnell. Is your goal only to have Wahabbi, or Salifi Islamic scholars on the pages of Wikipedia? Once again, the references are all there that have been manufactured to follow the ways of Wikipedia and the western educational standards. Go see Hisham Kabbani to see what I mean. But this is not the Sufi way and it is a fabrication. So we stand on real honor and if you wish to delete a true servant, McConnell, then the responsibility is all yours. BeNothing (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the Bilal Phillips article with the post that reads, this article needs additional citations for verification. Why are you not nominating it for deletion? McConnell has attended a much more prestigious school than Phillips and received his certificate to be an Imam. The training under Shiekh Nazim is light years ahead of these institutional teachers. Why not asking for references to prove Phillips attendance to the school he claims he went to. There is a definite double standard because people do not want traditional Sufi teaching methods to be mentioned or presented - methods that cause people to question the academic/university method. Also, why not placing the notice, this article needs additional citations for verification, on McConnell's site and giving the same opportunity for the editors to make changes before causing the editors to spend all their time discussing and defending, rather than improving the article. It is very subjective! I say this is an attack from people prejudice to the subject matter and who know little or nothing about the subject. They are quick to judge based on bigotry or ignorance and DO NOT afford the same consideration to McConnell as they would to subjects more palatable to their narrow expertise. It is correct to assume a military buff, likely trained by the military who is documented as promoting hatred about all things Muslim, to have an agenda in entering this matter and acting improperly. I have edited Sufism pages in the past and have encountered the same ignorance, bigotry and double standards. The complaints in this area fill the Internet and are at the heart of the problems with Wikipedia.

What people object to here, while ignoring the actual academic training, high accomplishment in television, ABC interviews and the undisputed standing of Sheikh Nazim Al-Haqqani, is the fact that the contemporary method of teaching people to go to school, buy a title, rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt only to become a debt slave to a master/employer is flawed at the core. Having all received your identity from this system; you are coming down hard on anything that challenges that. Sorry to say, it is all ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You are more likely to encounter anti-Sufi prejudice from certain quarters of Islam than from me. You have got time to post additional references. Several articles up for deletion have been completely rewritten during the discussions, and most editors are quite prepared to change their !vote. I do wish, though, that you would stop wasting your time telling me what my background and prejudices are. You do not know what my background is. (Other than as a real ale drinker, I am unlikely to be Muslim - although I have had a pint of bitter taken off me and replaced by hers by a Muslim lady I know, and have drunk wine and eaten bacon butties at her house. (She didn't like her pint - thought mine was better. She was right.)) You seem determined to be a martyr. We are not ignoring the academic training - but note that having trained under someone notable does not confer notability on you. Sorry, on the subject of the article. We are asking, repeatedly, for evidence in the form of independent, reliable sources. These are the rules of Wikipedia. If I went to Iran, should they change their rules because I wanted a pint of bitter? Would they? We don't accept someone's say-so without backup. You aren't providing any. What should we do? Peridon (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is some notarity

I have to agree, the prejudice from the Wahabbi side is much more intense. In fact, McConnell has been refused from uploading his videos to a number of so-called Muslim sites as indicated on the friendlycombatant.com site uder about us. Further indication of his notability, in my book. I am working on the article and I forgot to mention perhaps one of the most notable things about McConnell he is a cupping practitioner and author of what from my research is the first English publication on traditional cupping or hijama. It was released as an ebook with an ISBN and is now avaialble for free. McConnell is interested in diseminating knowledge, not profiting from it. He lives a very simple life. Thanks for the input. I have been spooked by previous bad behavior on wiki, so forgive some of my reactionary behavior.

Again, what you are asking for is there. McConnell does have a certificate to be an Imam, verified as much as anyone elses claim to education at a known institution. What is required, a copy of his certificate? I do not see that requirement anywhere else. If someone satys they are a graduate from a universtity, anyone who challenges that can call the alumni office or registrars office. Abu Nour is well recognized and well known. I have provided information on the Sheikh McConnell took Biat with and intiated under. You can contact him at www.saltanat.org if you challenge this FACT. It is a refrence, better than any book. There are so many methods for publishing today, it is a bit silly to take a book over a living person. A person is a verifiable refrence, more than a dead author. It is not possible to get a letter or certidficate proving this as it is not permitted, but the refrence is verifiable for anyone who wishes to check.

Why ignore McConnell's work as a filmmaker? Who is more notable in the field of the Sufi genre? Why ignore the refrences provided working for some of the top filmmakers in the industry? Why ignore the fact McCOnnell created Reality TV? If he had sued Broadway Video he would have been a millionaire, but it was his fault for leaving, his choice. I am aware their were signed contracts but I do not know how to get hold of them. All that aside, McConnell is arguably the most proficient cupper in the West as evidenced by his traditional cupping education course and years of work in the industry.

Yes, I believe there is a double standard here. People are not making these kinds of challenges with other articles, not with the vigor and haste shown here. I still firmly believe there should have been dialogue, respect, and a simplier approach asking for more refrences than making me jump through these hoops. Busy accomplished people take offense when there time is wasted and yes, I do think this is hobby, sport, entertainment for most. You can still get a pint in most Muslim countries . . . . But showing an ID when you are 80 years old is ubsurd. Sometimes references are foolish when accomplishmnet is obvious.

Go compare pages like Bilal Phillips and place a deletion notice on his article if you are balanced and sincere. This does no excuse bad work with this article, but it is just one of thousands of pages not met with the same standards applied here WHY????????

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC) 

"McConnell is arguably the most proficient cupper" - is this fire cupping or wet cupping? And why is practising an 'art' regarded as non-beneficial (if not positively mediaeval and harmful) by modern medicine a source of notability - with no source for this proficiency into the bargain? If you don't think other articles are pursued with vigour, have a look at WP:AFD and scroll down to Archived Discussions. You wouldn't believe the amount of discussion in some cases. "I still firmly believe there should have been dialogue, respect, and a simplier approach asking for more refrences than making me jump through these hoops." Please see WP:RS]] as references from the subject's own company are not valid for establishing notability. We are trying to give respect, but are being met with what approaches invective. When we find this, it is usually down to the article's creator not understanding our requirements, or, quite often, trying to bluster through. I prefer to assume not understanding until it becomes clear that bluster is the order of the day. As to other articles not complying - I patrol new account edits but do find older articles in the course of this. I don't think I'd heard of Phillips before. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Narrow Thinking Abounds on Wikipedia

A narrow prejudice is revealing itself once again. Once again, accomplished people need to waste their time addressing people that do not have a clue!!! If it aint AMERICON it aint any good. Cupping, wet or fire, is practiced in two-thirds of the world and is thus accepted by most as very beneficial. Because the medical mafia does not support something they cannot charge thousands of dollars to perform, is not a surprise. Nevertheless, cupping has caught on like crazy in the West and is avaialble at most accupuncture clinics. I suppose you think accupuncture is useless as well. Cupping has been proven very effective and is used by medically trained doctors in England, the Far East, the Middle East and many other countries. THIS IS what I mean by people entering and judging things they know nothing about. Scientifically speaking, cupping only removes dead blood cells. No living cells are extracted in the cupping process. Have your American Web MD expert explain that -- Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Bringing a treatment that cleans the cardiovascular system to America is perhaps very foolish, we should let everyone die of heart disease and pay millions for "approved" medical treatment, is that what you prefer? Try searching google "traditional cupping hijama", McConnell is everywhere!!!!!!!!! Unflipping believable. Go have a pint on me. But don't drink and edit. Like I have said many times before, this is mostly sport and entertainment for people with nothing better to do. BeNothing (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeNothing (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

There is nothing self serving about McConnell if you take the time to look. BeNothing (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete All due respect to the subject and the editors favoring keeping this article, but I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. A google news search for "cupping hijama McConnell" finds no hits. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bias Again Google Search Results for "cupping hijama McConnell"

Mobipocket eBook: "Traditional Cupping (Hijama) Education Course ... Presentation page of the ebook "Traditional Cupping (Hijama) Education Course" by James M. McConnell. Read it on your PC PDA or Smartphones: Windows Mobile ... www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?... - Cached - Similar

Is cupping an effective treatment? - by James Mcconnell - Helium Cupping - Effective Treatment or Not? Cupping, Hijama, Buhwang . . . Effective Treatment or Not? Known by many ..., James Mcconnell. www.helium.com/.../667449-is-cupping-an-effective-treatment - Cached - Similar

James Umar McConnell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to Cupping Practitioner and Author‎: Traditional Cupping, Hijama. McConnell received formal permission to provide cupping services from Sheikh ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Umar_McConnell - Cached

Cupping Hijama Directory of Practitioners Cupping, preventative cupping, hijama, buhwang, santa fe, abiquiu, workshop, ... James McConnell. NSW Authorized Cupper Broken Earth Signatory - Yes ... www.brokenearth.org/Hijama/directory.htm - Cached - Similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.58.161 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notarity

Notarity in traditional Sufi teachings is based on the teacher who has taken the student under their wing. As in the case of job refrences, former employers are often considered above everything else, especially when tyhat employer are themselves leaders in their field(See the articles clear refrences). The teacher who has taken McConnell as a student is living and can be contacted at Saltanat.org by anyone disputing that connection or referance. I do not see copies of certificates or degrees proving people attended a university for any other living bio. It is taken at face value and people are free to contact the schoool if in doubt. This teacher is by many accounts the most highly respected teacher in the field of tasqiya alive today and is the head of the Naqshbandi Sufi Way. Notarity must also be condsidered in the field it is being judged. There are very few filmmakers in this genre and therefore anyone in the field is notable as they are all unique. Apart from that McConnell attended both the Baltimore brnch and main Abu Nour University for which few Americans have been selected or invited to attend that same program. It is a program that only selects those persons who are already proven leaders in their field. The fact that McConnell does not give it much regard does not nigate its standing in the world or status as a reference.

One need only review the list of "Converts to Islam" who appear on wikipedia, to understand that McConnell stands out above many other entries. Religious people - real religious people, are not prone to self promotion. Traditionally, the top student of a authorized Sufi teacher is the one cleaning and arranging people's shoes in the back of the room. Out of sight, not wanting to be seen. If you remove McConnell he will not care, but many people will then only have these self-agrandizing frauds to learn about their religion. Lets hope the admin judging this has good reason and a good heart. 97.123.58.161 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

While a search for "cupping hijama mcconnell' in the google NEWS search, reveals no results, not surprisingly, there are also not any results for "hijama" and only a very few for "cupping", most dealing with coffee drinking. This then is the basis for removing McConnell from Wiki? I also find it very interesting that nuuJINN New Jinn or New [Genie]] would present such a position. Interesting. The Bias is mindboggling!!!! 97.123.58.161 (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting interpretation of my handle. Seems a stretch to me, but hey, interesting nonetheless, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Worst Teacher

It is starting to occur to me that the most notable thing about McConnell and what might likely be the issue here, is that McConnell is the only person in America asking the question, “Why does the State Department flood America with these polarized radical and progressive Muslims into America” Not only is he the openly person asking this question, he is the only person with the direct experience to answer it. There is a video circulating the Middle East that presents McConnell as the worst teacher to have ever taught at ALC, when the facts, student reviews and all available information confirms otherwise. Another teacher at ALC while McConnell was teaching was the famed James Yusef Yee, a graduate of West Point, Captain and Muslim Chaplin, who was targeted by the US government when returning to America to expose the Guantanamo Bay fiasco. If you remove McConnell, you remove the only voice against this orchestrated flooding of America with hand selected advocates for a brand of democracy designed to destroy and rule the world. BeNothing (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, the issue here is notability as defined by wikipedia's policy. McConnell, sinner or saint, regardless of his statue as religious person, however good or bad he is, does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources as defined by wikipedia policy. And for what it's worth, I personally do not believe that wikipedia is the only venue for his "voice", nor do I think it is an appropriate venue for same--we're an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

On the whole he has more than many other Bios that remain unchallenged which leads me to believe it is bias, not wiki rules. Again I point to Bilal Phillips as just one of many examples. I do believe it is the position on the State Department allowing hand selected imigrants to poision the well, representing Islam to Americans, that is behind this campaign to challenge McConnell. That position alone is notable as well as true. McConnell was selected to study at Abu Nour University because of his proven accomplishment and unique training at the Baltimore branch he helped to develop and establish. This was an exclusive Imam and Khatib program that perhaps only a half dozen Americans have attended. Are you questioning that qualification. I think not, just selecting things that support a very narrow argument. You said nothing about my NuuJinn observation, I guess I am spot on. Now go and propose Bilal Philips for deletion and other radical hate mongering Muslims who were invited into America and trained by Saudi (Wahabbi) Muslims most hostile to the West. But, no, people I suspect to be shills are here to promote that hate and attempt to remove anyone with an attractive perspective on Islam. The refrence are there, there are more. No one has worked to make any contribution, only try to remove this one good example of Islam. Let's hope we get an admin with a broad and global view to judge this matter. One not paid by the State Department. Any removal of McConnell will be challenged to the fullest extent possible. It is no surprise McConnell will get little to no support from the immigrant Muslim community that comprise of most Muslims on Wiki. Rest assured anyone mentioning the term State Department is on the radar. BeNothing (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Guidlines Not Followed

What is at issue here is the person who proposed deletion did so without following guidlines. The second person in no longer has an account, all very suspicious. If proper procedures were followed, instead of this rush to delete, then the author could have spent more time researching and investigating references. No one has made any constructive input, all intent on deleting over improving.

Before nominating an article for AFD, please:

         o before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Does anyone see any advise on the discussion page????

Please show me where other bios have a hard copy of their degree to prove their attendance at a university????

McConnell, being one of the few invited Americans and someone who worked side-by-side with the Director of the Baltimore branch of Abu Nour, helping him to establish that branch, is clearly qualified to be on Wiki.

A Good Example

       A man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, as you would expect from people who are trying to build a house.
       Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough."
       The builder replies, "They aren't finished yet."
       The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly.
       "Of course not," the builder replies, "We haven't finished it yet."
       "And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on."
       "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!"
       The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

Just as in this absurd story, we as Wikipedians must look to the house we are building. Wikipedia, the potential "sum of all human knowledge," as a general rule, is a work-in-progress. Wikipedia is not published all at once. It evolves and grows. Every article is still being written, albeit slowly. Rome cannot be built in one day; neither can an article be perfect first time around. A building, like an article, takes time to build. Imagine if this building were constantly ripped apart at the seams during construction!

When an article is being written, and sources are being found and validated, then the article will be small and mostly unsourced and not very full of information. This is, of course, called a stub. Stubs are stubs because they have yet to be expanded.

Oftentimes, an article or set of articles will be run across that seem devoid of much information. Sometimes it will be nothing but cruft that must be removed. But often, the subject matter is simply in-progress. Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it.

Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily.

As with a house, knowledge takes time to build. Don't be the inspector, prying the seams apart before the product is even near-presentable. You cannot expect every article to be full and complete when it is first written. If this were so, then Wikipedia would have failed long ago. Try not to forget the spirit of Wikipedia: sharing knowledge. BeNothing (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2010 (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.