Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilization Jihad

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 Speedy delete. Speedied under G10, G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Jihad

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

Ludicrous piece of original research, in clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The violations that are being referred to are not clear enough. Would you mind elucidating your stance a bit further? Civilization Jihad is well cited and notable enough it seems, I don't get it what the problem is. Until you elaborate your reason for nominating it for deletion I am surely more inclined to vote for keeping it. Mr T^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 04:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources attest the existence of this phenomenon - the article relies on flagrantly unreliable sources like The Blaze and WorldNetDaily. When we confine ourselves to reliable sources, we find that while some of the facts may be individually verifiable, like the Holy Land Foundation trials or CAIR's opposition to anti-Muslim military training, their supposedly forming part of a vast Muslim conspiracy is obvious WP:OR and WP:POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--actually speedy delete as G10 and G11, advocacy & negative BLP First, This is the type of original research we call synthesis, the assembly and anlysis of data from various sources to prove an hypothesis. We do not do that here; rather, we report on the notable hypotheses others have formulated and published. Thisdis because ewe here lack the scholarly or journalistic credentials to construct reasonable hypotheses,and the further scholarly or editorial credentials to give proper review to what others propose. This would be the same no matter what hypothesis were being proposed, or what opinion were being promulgated. That in the opinion of some of us this is a rather far-out position is not necessarily relevant. Were it a similarly based defense of the position of the Muslim Brotherhood from the most sympathetic of viewpoints, it would be equally inappropriate. Even were it an attempt at a balanced assessment of the issue based on its own independent and original analysis, it would be inappropriate. This role is for others. Such analyses are important and valuable, and when published elsewhere, they can be used together with all pertinent published analyses as the basis for WP articles.

Second, reading the full article once again, I realize that this is essentially a inadequately sourced negative article about living individuals and should be immediately removed. It could also immediately be removed as G11, advocacy or promotionalism; that what it amounts. to . I havedecided not to delete it single-handed myself, but I am putting speedy tags on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 29 March 2013 (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.