Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy[edit]

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

I removed a previously declined PROD from the article. ~~The IP that initially declined it is suspected of being a sockpuppet, but as that has not been proven, I think we need to assume good faith and accept the decline of PROD as valid.~~ In any event, there really needs to be a full deletion discussion, given the length of time this article has existed and the number of edits made. I am slightly leaning to delete on this, but frankly decent keep or delete arguments could be made here, so I will keep my mind open on this. Safiel (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note the IP has been blocked for being a sockpuppet, but really doesn't matter, as this needed an AfD discussion anyhow. Safiel (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV. This article, to the extent that it addresses its topic (i.e., beyond just what would be covered in blasphemy laws) is largely a mix of unsourced opinion, unsourced examples, examples where people are using their free speech to speak out against blasphemy (which is not a conflict between the existence of blasphemy laws and free speech). Blasphemy laws are inherently a limitation on free speech, so this is really not a separate topic from blasphemy laws, but more of a POV fork. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "lede" reads like an essay. It is also unreferenced and inherently non-neutral. As for the rest of the article, that is an indiscriminate list of random factoids and offers no support as to the notability of the topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Could be renamed to "List of blasphemy controversies" or something like that, since it is more of a list than an article. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'd find that just about every religious schism and war with even a slight religious taint includes an accusation of blasphemy somewhere in it, making it a rather huge an undirected list in the end. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the article could be cleaned up? What if the list would only include cases with wikipedia articles? There is also List of Islamic terrorist attacks, which is not less controversial (therefore has same problems with NPOV...). The topic itself is notable, and NPOV and COATRACK can be fixed by editing. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I note, controversies in which someone throws in the word "blasphemy" at some point would be a huge and fuzzy list; that it include lots of things that have Wikipedia articles (wars, pieces of art, religious schisms, just about anyone to ever comment on religious, and so forth), and with reaction ranging from mild criticism to state-sponsored wars. I don't see that the use of that accusation is sufficiently unifying to create a clear list... and to a certain degree, we're getting into "this could be a good article if we replace the title and the content", which is always inherently true. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I second Nat Gertler's arguments. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 11:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable topic, but current content is blatant OR (in particular, original synthesis). I sympathize with Calypsomusic's argument, but I think a list would become a coatrack for incidents where someone shouts "blasphemy" and the other shouts "freedom of speech". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Nat Gertler. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a major violation of both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The topics "freedom of speech" and "blasphemy" are individually notable, but the only connection here is that drawn by the article's creator. The body of the article just consists of various examples of what, in the creator's opinion, constitutes conflict between how the creator has chosen to define the two aformentioned terms. It's a great term paper but not an encyclopedic article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a list article. Being a list is appears as a synthesis but every list does. That it needs work is another matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange as it may seem, it is not what Wikipedia defines as a list article, rather it's a collection of random factoids. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that the structure and name of the article is unsatisifactory, but it is not a random list of factoids. Rather it is a list of cases where there have been accusations of blasphemy, in a context where the defence is one of free speech. Rename to perhaps List of blasphemy allegations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, User:NatGertler puts it well. Yes, another article with another title, as proposed by some of the "Keep" votes, might be acceptable, but that's rather missing the point that this article is a hopeless tangle of original research. Would not oppose it being moved into someone's userspace if they want to try and re-use some of this content in another article or list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:32, 7 June 2014 (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.