Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the Islamic world (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 8.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. Just because the article contains POV does not mean that the entire article should be deleted; rather, it should be improved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inventions in the Islamic world[edit]

This article is an indiscriminate list, the fact that these inventions are 'islamic' does not mark them out from any other inventions worthy of mention in wikipedia, and is redundant to the established 'thing by nationality' article naming convention. Secondly, the term 'islamic' is insufficiently defined to provide any meaningfull purpose to the article, beyond a violation of the neutral point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGEST DELETE!!!This page is crazy. CRAZY! The "on/off switch?" Does anyone actually think that a Medieval "switch" had any influence over science in the 1950s? (Its not that big a deal by the way, on..off..hmm, pretty tough). By the way, talc is not fireproof clothing, because its NOT CLOTH! This article makes Wikipedia look bad, not least because there's no such thing as RELIGIOUS SCIENCE! There was no unified Islamic state after 750.

I would just like to tell everyone I'm starting a new page, Inventions of the Satanist world. I'm not sure what Satanists invented yet, but I'll be sure to include talc (as fireproof clothing) and androids and the on/off switch.

This article is propaganda and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I hope everyone enjoys my Satanist inventions page, which will include everthing known to man.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, as it first asserts in the title that Muslims live in a different world than other people (I know that 'world' can be a common term, but it is not always necessarily suitable for an encyclopedia article). Also agree with nom that the fact that they are 'Islamic' doesn't place them in a separate category or give them any other special recognition than 'other inventions'. Happyme22 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has a good foundation in reliable sources which the article cites. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest that the article be pruned and renamed to Inventions of the Muslim Golden Age as suggested by User:DougWeller on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above criticisms are essentially content-related and can be fixed with a little vigorous editing. Otherwise, the article represents an excellent basis for something tighter. The topic is a notable subject of academic inquiry, and the article is well referenced. Naming based on nationality is not a meaningful concept when it comes to historical developments, particularly in the Islamic World, where religion and nationality are often essentially indistinguishable. nb. One of the references is listed simply as "1001 Inventions", however the full title is "1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World". Debate (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to nom's and Happyme22's concern about the title, you might want to consider nominating the article Muslim world for afd as well, and see how far that gets. Debate (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute when the central issue is the topic title. I don't see what significance being from the 'muslim world' gives to an invention, whereas I do agree with the point that the 'muslim world' is a significant theme for topics such as pilosophy, culture, law etc, for obvious reasons. But this topic. which is essentially a long list, is a contrived intersection. We don't have for example, a Category:Muslim inventors, whereas we do have Category:Iranian inventors. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also note that the article was last nominated for deletion only three months ago, when the grounds for nomination was virtually identical and the outcome overwhelmingly in favor of keep. I would be eager to see the nom justify what has changed in that short time which would justify a second nomination. Debate (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it because it came up at ANI and on reading it I thought it was deleteable. I didn't realy understand either the nomination reason or the closing comment of the previous Afd, and it seemed to be closesd as a point nomination so it can't exactly be described as a succesfull keep vote, merely an early procedural close. I think my nomination reason stands on its own, without any accusations of pointedness, and so far I'm not seeing any clear cut reasons why my nomination rationale is a bad one, it seems to just rest on whether you do or do not think an invention being from the islamic world is a notable intersection worthy of an article. Perhaps if there was a meaningfull introductory lead, giving some context to the article, it might be different. As it is now, it seems to me to be an indiscriminate list, bordering on an NPOV subject through the implication that there is something inherently notable about an invention being made in the islamic world (as opposed to in a certain country, or by a particular society, or to meet a particular need). In fact the article gives zero indication of a causal relationship at all. I could also half see it as having a practical and notable purpose if it were listed in order of date, as a usefull fork of Timeline of Muslim scientists and engineers, but being listed by type just makes it appear even more indiscriminate. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the scope of the topic is clearly defined - that is, inventions produced by Islamic civilisation - so I cannot agree that the article is an indiscriminate list. There are plenty of academic publications documenting the contributions of the Muslim world, such as the Cambridge History of Islam vol. 2B, so I don't see any shortage of potential for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. That said, the standard of citations used is already quite good. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't a defined topic (although 'Islamic world' is enough of a vague concept in my opinion for people to dispute what should and should not be here); the indiscriminate nature is by virtue of the fact it is a meaningless interection, the same way as if you were to list people with blue eyes that like Country music, its defined, but not a notable intersection. As above, I am not disputing that other islamic topics are deserving of bringing together. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is whether the topic of "Inventions in the Islamic world" is a notable, then I think it is because I do believe the number of sources available on this topic are quite substantial. Scholars talk about these developments within the context of Islamic civilisation (which is indeed quite broad in meaning), just as one may talk about the contributions of Greek civilisation. ITAQALLAH 21:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please note that the above poster is an islamic pov pusher

Comment -- the unsigned note above was by 00:13, 1 June 2008 Oxyman42 (Talk | contribs) Doug Weller (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. The so called sources that are listed are very dubious in the extreme Oxyman42 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 121 references. I doubt they are all dubious. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually most are dubious or tacken out of context and would not be tollerated if it wasn't for the need to appease muslimsOxyman42 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments in first nom. --Goon Noot (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is so much better than List of United States inventions. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The statements made in this article are overbroad, vague, and sloppily researched. The bulk of these have been known by ancient Greeks and Romans; many are much older. Frotz (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As has been mentioned numerous times before, the terms "Islamic world" or "Islamic civilization" are clearly defined terms and are by far the most accademically accepted terms when it comes to describing developments in the medieval Near East, North Africa, Central Asia, Moorish Spain, etc. There is nothing wrong with the subject matter of the article itself, but if anyone has any issues with POV content or sources, that is not a valid reason for deletion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the title of the article could be renamed to Technology in the Islamic world or Medieval Islamic technology (the term used by Donald Routledge Hill). Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that the scope is clarified. It makes sense to sort inventions like this for medieval times, when "Islamic world" is a logical classification. It makes no sense to include entries like "In 2007, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor from Malaysia travelled to ISS with his Expedition 16 crew aboard Soyuz TMA-11 as part of the Angkasawan program during Ramadan. He was both an astronaut and an orthopedic surgeon, and is most notable for being the first to perform biomedical research in space, mainly related to the characteristics and growth of liver cancer and leukemia cells and the crystallisation of various proteins and microbes in space." This should go in an article about Malaysia, not about the "Islamic world." This issue is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Mangostar (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no supporter of Islam, and would dispute (as already tagged) the correctness of listing some of the items, which derive from the Ancient World. This certainly applies to some of the milling inventions and probably what is incorrectly referred to as a finery forge, but is more likely to have been a water-powered bloomery. Furthermore, the Basque region (whence most iron came) was never (or hardly) under Islamic control. Nevertheless, the Islamic achievement is definitely notable, and the article should thus be kept. I read somewhere a comment about a lack of a thorough study of the subject. I would however suggest that the scope of the article should be limited to the Medieval period (say 700-1500 AD) and that some one should go through and eliminate items from earlier periods that merely reached Europe through the Islamic world. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stuff and nonsense. Libraries existed for a millennium before the birth of the prophet. L0b0t (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (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.