User talk:MyMagics: Difference between revisions

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:
::Hey [[User:Axius|Axius]], That whole nonsense was added by some apologist[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=596368250&oldid=596312316], not even a month ago. You can ask wikipedians on teahouse[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/chatclickthrough], if you want quick help. Someone removed that whole thing.  [[User:MyMagics|MyMagics]] ([[User talk:MyMagics|talk]]) 10:29, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
::Hey [[User:Axius|Axius]], That whole nonsense was added by some apologist[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=596368250&oldid=596312316], not even a month ago. You can ask wikipedians on teahouse[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/chatclickthrough], if you want quick help. Someone removed that whole thing.  [[User:MyMagics|MyMagics]] ([[User talk:MyMagics|talk]]) 10:29, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
::That page has been vandalized many times, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590831468&oldid=590829726], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=584399218&oldid=583984772], .. But removed everytime as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590246133&oldid=590244796], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590831468&oldid=590829726]. See.
::That page has been vandalized many times, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590831468&oldid=590829726], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=584399218&oldid=583984772], .. But removed everytime as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590246133&oldid=590244796], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamta_Kulkarni&diff=590831468&oldid=590829726]. See.
:::I think there are several issues with this page and it should be deleted.
:::1. She is not really notable (I had no idea who she was until today) and there are hundreds of similar claims.
:::2. There isn't really much of an article. We can't separate individual sentences into sections, so really all we have is an 8-sentence stub.
:::3. Both sources cannot be used. The first one is a Hindu site and is not a reliable souce. The second one clearly says "We chanced upon her blog. Can’t be sure if it is really her", and links to a dead blog that no longer exists (#3 is the biggest problem). [[User:Sahab|--Sahab]] ([[User talk:Sahab|talk]]) 11:59, 18 March 2014 (PDT)

Revision as of 18:59, 18 March 2014

Mamta Kulkarni (Conversion to Islam)

If the story can be confirmed it would be great but I think this needs further investigation. According to Wikipedia, she did convert to Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamta_Kulkarni

Usually they dont accept sources that are not true (in this case they provided two sources). I dont see anything about this on their talk page. This will need more sources to really confirm if this was true or false. Do you have any additional sources? Our other similar pages provide lots of proof and that is confirmed with the fact that there is no mention of their conversion to Islam on their Wikipedia pages. --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:29, 18 March 2014 (PDT)

Another relevant link [1] so I think the status of this conversion is disputed, not confirmed. It can only be considered as confirmed if reliable sources have reported it (atleast one, and multiple if possible). --Axius (talk | contribs) 09:48, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
Hey Axius, That whole nonsense was added by some apologist[2], not even a month ago. You can ask wikipedians on teahouse[3], if you want quick help. Someone removed that whole thing. MyMagics (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2014 (PDT)
That page has been vandalized many times, see [4], [5], .. But removed everytime as well [6], [7]. See.
I think there are several issues with this page and it should be deleted.
1. She is not really notable (I had no idea who she was until today) and there are hundreds of similar claims.
2. There isn't really much of an article. We can't separate individual sentences into sections, so really all we have is an 8-sentence stub.
3. Both sources cannot be used. The first one is a Hindu site and is not a reliable souce. The second one clearly says "We chanced upon her blog. Can’t be sure if it is really her", and links to a dead blog that no longer exists (#3 is the biggest problem). --Sahab (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2014 (PDT)