Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Islamist alliance

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Islamist alliance[edit]

Delete - Highly POV article, based on synthesis and original research, apparently designed to present several separate incidents as an organised movement. Article is full of unattributed characterisations and well-poisoning. It was originally nominated for speedy deletion as an attack article, but the tag was removed by another editor. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I declined the speedy because in my view it was a sourced attack as opposed to an unsourced one, so any deletion should be decided at AFD not CSD. I think the topic probably should have an article but am not sure whether this article has yet been sufficiently salvaged, though I've done some rewriting of it and therefore am neither supporting or opposing this AFD. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Islamist is being used as a pejorative (in the most extreme way, when in fact definitions vary). I would keep this article no more than Right-Islamist alliance. Dynablaster (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly-POV term used very little, and exclusively on highly-POV blogs and weblists. --Duncan (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the author of most of the article I have to point out that three different sources talk about an alliance of "The Left and the Islamists", (Joshua Kurlantzick), "Islamists and the political Left" (Fred Halliday), http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Article.asp?ID=3360&SectionID=83 and "an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists ..." (Amir Taheri)http://web.archive.org/web/20040621173829/http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5163 You can certainly say these sources are highly critical of the alliance but you can't say the concept of a left-Islamist alliance is a synthesis of an editor!
As for "Islamist is being used as a pejorative", If all the comment on an issue is critical does that mean the issue can't qualify for an article in wikipedia? I don't think so but at WereSpielChequers request I will try to find more neutral sources.--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a typical case of a fringe topic that is not supported by any clearly third party reliable sources to establish notability. Just linking to a few fringe opinion articles is not enough. There needs to be reliable, mainstream, third party evidence that this belief is widespread enough to be notable. At this time, it should be deleted due to lack of evidence of such notability. Furthermore, were it ever to rise to the level of notability, an article on it would have to be written entirely differently, and likely even have a different name. It would likely have to be named something like "beliefs about a Left-Islamist alliance', and in order to satisfy WP:NPOV it would have to be written from the perspective of describing the belief while balancing it with the mainstream view. Presently, it just appears to promote the view. Nevertheless, the main point is that lack of notability is basis for deletion at this time. Locke9k (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unencyclopedic POV fork. Even if sourced, we could only say that there is a notable theory, opinion, etc. But Wikipedia cannot endorse that there is a conspiracy between liberals and islamists. That seems to be cobbled together here as a personal opinion / synthesis of the article creators - no reliable sources say that such a thing exists. Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wavering either way There is potential for an article on this subject, but it needs sourcing that is not just to opinion columns in the general and political press. It also needs to be able to take in the complexity of the issue as covered in this article [1] which makes it clear that the last thing substantial sections of the left want to do is be soft on revolutionary Islam.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is highly POV, original research, and lacking reliable sources. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --J^mundo 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as a POV synthesis that consists mostly of original research. I would not object to an article on this subject entirely; perhaps a neutral article on 'Collaboration between Islamic and left-wing political groups' could be written, provided it stuck scrupulously to reliable sources, but this definitely isn't it. Robofish (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly POV article, based on synthesis and original research --170.35.208.21 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2009 (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.