Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sererism

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sererism

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

This article is unverifiable or original research. There are zero Google Scholar or Google Book search results for "Sererism" or its possible variants (Seererism, Seereerisme). The Google Web search results seem to be mostly or wholly from Wikipedia mirrors. I am not minded to assume good faith in the provided offline references, given that the article's creator, Tamsier (talk · contribs), seems to be in the habit of creating unverifiable articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiemassassians and now also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xoy Ceremony‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laman Jegan Joof). Sandstein 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is evident that there is a religious and historical politics being played here by certain Wiki Administrators. Not all, but some. All Serer articles with the exception of few (their choosing) will be nominated for deletion even if you follow the rules laid out in Wiki and provide reliable sources. It is irrelevant to them how many sources you cite, they are trying to block any article related to Serer religion or history. If anyone wants to know what is going on here and why these people keep nominating Serer related articles for deletion, visit the following links where I have signed my name underneath my responses. I was going to add more sources in each of my articles and cleaned them up a bit, but I will not be adding any more, because no matter what I do and how many sources I have added etc, these people will still nominate these articles for deletion.

To find out what is going on here, see the following links:

This link will take you to the Laman Jegan Joof talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laman_Jegan_Joof

This link will take you to the Xoy Ceremony talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xoy_Ceremony

Maba's Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maba_Diakhou_B%C3%A2

Tamsier (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what we need are reliable published sources that address the topic of "Sererism". Can you reproduce a few verbatim quotations from the offline sources you cite in the article to allow us to check how they describe the topic? Sandstein 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ Delete - In its current state, the article is unencyclopaedic, however, a Google scholar or book search for Serer animist or Serer animism, which appears to be what this article is about, returns a number of sources, I am not sure if the subject meets the notability guidelines yet. If so, it would need to be moved to Serer animism, because that is what all of the sources I have seen call it, it also would need to be heavily cleaned up. Quasi human | Talk 11:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all rather weird. There is a (unsourced) section at Serer people#Religion (shorter in the pre-Tamsier version) that describes this people's traditional beliefs, apparently in a god called Roog. Nothing of this is in the current Sererism article, which seems to have no actual content beyond reiterating how ancient and orthodox and awesome this faith is. The Google search results mostly seem to tell us that the Serer are animists, but it's not clear that there are (accessible) sources describing their version of animism in particular. Sandstein 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources I have found so far seem to give very trivial coverage, and maybe the right place for this info is on Serer people, which needs attention itself. I'm not ready to drop the provisional from my delete yet, as I would like to do a little more research. Quasi human | Talk 11:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interestingly, this book covers the Serer people in some detail, and also uses "Roog" as the name for the deity, although it doesn't have very much content on the religion of the Serer. I'm not convinced that a separate article for this is merited, the amount of verifiable information available on this would make for a very small stub, and would, in my opinion, be better contained within Serer people. Changed my !vote above. Quasi human | Talk 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on Sandstein and Quasihuman's research, this article is not only unsourced, it appears to disagree with what reliable sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to ask for this article or any Serer related article to be kept or deleted. Previously, I was going to add more with sources. As any one can see, the articles were never finished, but adding more with sources would now be a waste of my time. I've stopped asking for their acceptance once I realised what is going on here by certain Administrators. To be frank, I now careless whether they are kept or not. We all know Serer related articles are destined to the rubbish bin. All Serer related articles will be deleted no matter the number of sources etc. A good example of this is the Thiemassassian article. In that article, not only did I use historical sources, but verifiable archaelogical findings. If these people can over rule professional scholars, it just goes to show you the type of people administering Wiki. Personally, I will be closing my Wiki account and would urge all Serers to refrain from contributing to this so called encyclopedia [Wiki]. This is an encyclopedia administered by group of people with an agenda. They protect the articles of certain members within this so called community. Do not be fooled, articles are not accepted based on merit or any of the rules stated on Wiki. Even if you follow the rules to the hilt, Serer related articles will be deleted.

This brings me to another point. Normally I would not concern myself with such things, but for the purposes of neutrality etc, I think certain Administrators should declear their religious affiliation before being made Administrators. To be frank, I am quite suspicious about the motives of both Noq and Edward321. There are others but these two in particular are everywhere you see a Serer related article being nominated for deletion. Sometime it is them particularly Noq who instigate it. I challenge anyone to look at the history section of all Serer related articles deleted or pending deletion and you will find Noq there. You will also find this character called Edward321 who normally comes in at the end and follow what someone had said. By the way, just because someone call themselves Edward does not necessarily mean they are Christians. His name is probably not even Edward. If these people identify themselves as muslims, though I doubt they will state their true religion, but if they are muslims, then they are sympathetic to the muslim cause and as such, they are the least credible to participated in any Serer related article nominated for deletion. Personally, I don't care now, because I will not be contributing to Wiki and I will ask for my account to be deleted, but it would have helped me had I known about their true affiliations. Tamsier (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not an administrator, I have no power to delete any articles. I do new page patrolling and when I find an editor creating multiple new articles - many of them identical - and not sourcing those claims and I can find nothing on google to verify them myself then I will nominate them. I will also follow that editors contribution history to see if there are other articles with the same problems I will nominate them - that is why you saw my name a lot on those articles. My religion or lack of religion is nothing to do with it. noq (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I typed the above and went to check on the Maba article see [link below] where I had laid my concerns about the neutrality of that article few days ago [see the talk page]; asked for assitance about my concerns of that article from a particular administrator; invited T L Miles a major contributor to that article to a discussion and was told that he was only a translator not the author, having given it few days, I placed a neutrality template on it followed by speedy deletion. One of the administrators decided may be the speedy deletion was inappropriate but left the neutrality there, which I would have been quite happy with. However, after I finished the above entry, Guess who had taken out the neutrality template from Maba's article? Yes, Edward321, with no regard for the issues I have raised on the talk page. If you want to know who truly Maba was, go and read his talk page. In short, he was a muslim jihadist in the 19th century. Assume good faith, yes, but the actions of certain people are always questionable. Thank you Edward321. Give a man enough rope...

This is why people chosen to administer this site must be chosen very carefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maba_Diakhou_B%C3%A2

The following is a link to an administrator I contacted for advise when I first came upon Maba's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Belovedfreak#Maba_Diakhou_B.C3.A2

Tamsier (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier - I can see no evidence of a conspiracy against Serer related articles, If you believe that there is sufficient evidence, the appropriate place to report it is WP:ANI, not here. It is worthwhile for you to add more sources to the article, If you have sources that cover this subject in more detail, you should at least mention them here. This AFD is by no means a foregone conclusion, it has plenty of time left, and the consensus could change if evidence of notability is found. Also, if you mention a user's name in connection with some wrongdoing, it is considered courteous to inform them on their talk page, I have taken the liberty of informing User:Noq and User:Edward321. Quasi human | Talk 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Noq - You have misrepresented the facts as you always do. I have provided sources to every article I have ever written here on Wiki no matter how small the article. Do not play your games with me. I have neither the time nor the inclination to play your games. You have allied yourself with certain people here to delete certain articles no matter how many verifiable sources are produced etc. Lets not forget you were the first one to nominate an article I had produced within hours even though it was in its infancy. Another editor and I have expressed concern to you over your inability to give new articles a chance before nominating for their speedy deletion. Don't come here playing almighty when your intentions are less than noble. As for Edward321 - a member of your ilk, he went to Maba's article [see link above] and undone the neutrality template I put on it without any comment on the talk page where I had laid several concerns of that article with sources. Does this seem like the kind who respect Wiki's policy? Absolutely not.

These are the kind that have penetrated Wiki and use it as their battlefield in order to advance their selfish objectives. You may fool other editors but you will never fool me. Even to address your lame excuses which you have presented as facts as you have always done, is a waste of my energy and time. Well done for succeeding in the deletion of Serer articles. I take my hat off to you. Though remember one day you will met your match. Nothing goes on forever. You will one day meet an editor who has the same level of patience and cunningness that you have displayed here, and will contribute to your downfall and humiliation in this so called community -, detailing everything that you and others have been up to since the moment you start contributing to Wiki. The only regret I have is that, I will not be able to witness your ultimate downfall and humiliation. Enjoy your victory. I have nothing else to say to you.

Tamsier (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in agreement with Quasihuman to some to some extent. This would be better contained in the Serer people religion section. I think many of the article's content could be extremely useful if added to the Serer people religion. Therefore rather than completely deleting the article, why not consider adding this material to the serer people religion section. Anti Bullying Warrior (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Anti Bullying Warrior (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note Anti Bullying Warrior has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tamsier. noq (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of the content is salvageable. A major problem with this article is that there are no inline citations, so it is hard to tell the original research, which is undoubtedly present, from the valuable content. Just to clarify, when I said that the best place for the content was on the Serer people article, I was talking about content that cites reliable sources. Also, a merge, which is what you are suggesting, in my opinion, should involve the deletion of Sererism after the content has been merged, because it is not a plausible redirect, as no sources have been found that use that word. Quasi human | Talk 22:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignoring the diatribe on administrators above, the content of the article seems largely unsubstantiated by independent sources and because current sources above do not provide enough detail to merit an entire article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:56, 30 June 2011 (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.