Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftist-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. Singu larity 06:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist-Islamist Alliance

This page is structured around a supposed "political neologism" or catchphrase. However, it's not actually about any one neologism; instead it stitches together a series of unrelated sources (mostly unreliable, such as a Free Republic message board posting alleging that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was a sooper sekrit Mooslem![www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1819044/posts])

The only common ground between the sources is that they claim a nefarious connection between the far left and Islamism. While the topic of Leftism and Islamism might well be worthy of an article, it's impossible to write an neutral article on this topic, without resorting to original research, as long as it is based around a dubious conglomeration of nonce phrases. <eleland/talkedits> 10:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I suppose it would be impossible... if you try to delete it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, the concept of a relationship between the European Left and radical Islam might well be notable, however, when it's framed in terms of a "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" or a "Marx-Muhammad Pact," we are stacking the deck. If the only people who use such terms are right-wing Islamophobes, then the article effectively becomes a soapbox for right-wing Islamophobia. If you can find a handful of reasonably mainstream sources discussing the term "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" in depth, then maybe we can write a neutral article. If not, then it's not compatible with Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing Islamophobe" has as much credence as a neologism as "Marx-Muhammad pact."--WaltCip (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that's why Right-wing Islamophobia is a redlink. (A redirect to Islamophobia might be in order, and would not undermine the point here.) <eleland/talkedits> 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrelated sources have been brought together to provide a means of expressing the author's beliefs - i.e. that left-wingers, Europeans, and Islamic terrorists are basically the same thing. Oh, and no mention in independent reliable sources means no notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Obviously Marxists have taken a leading role in opposing the WoT (International ANSWER etc.) but this term is not widely used, any more than Chomsky's "US-Nazi Alliance" is. We have a "Critism of the WoT" article. WillOakland (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Keep I've seen a few documentaries about this topic, a couple good ones by David Aaronovitch. I don't like the current article title very much, but I definitely feel that there is room to expand and create an encyclopedic article to this subject matter. Perhaps "allegations of a leftist alliance with Islamist ideologies". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) rephrase suggestion. 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Leftism and Islamism, as the nom suggested, that would be a worthy topic. Obviously the article needs rewriting, but the topic does seem to have sources. Adding "allegations" to the title is problematic. Yahel Guhan 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism being used to push POV through unacceptable synthesis of original research. csloat (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soapboxing with little encyclopediatic value. --Soman (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right-wingers have plenty of soapboxes already, and this looks more like a prank than a POV. Under the original title Marx-Muhammad Pact this was a smear term {crackpot theory?) not deserving a standalone article. Nothing here would be useful in an article about Islam & the Left, however retitled. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to New Anti-semitism. Or Eurabia. Or whichever is the appropriate Useful Idiot article of the day, we have a wide choice. Relata refero (disp.) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SOAP, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK... the acronym list goes on and on.. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:SOAP and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article was already submitted for discussion less than a month ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marx-Muhammad Pact, and the consensus was keep. I see no reason why this should be brought up again so quickly when the article hasn't changed much. This as a very notable neologism and has been cited by reputable researchers/scientists like Daniel Pipes, William S. Lind and Tom G. Palmer. Obviously this is a very sensitive topic for the leftist majority at Wikipedia. /Slarre (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, alternately, for those who've looked up the word "reputable" in a dictionary. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Such claims are well known, notable, and sourced in this article. However they must be sourced much better - some statements are ORish. An inflammatory subject is not a reason for deletion. A lot of comments here sound as "I do not like it".Biophys (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree. We just have a lack of sources discussing the term rather than advocating it. Firstly, what source that we have says it's a neologism? What source shows that "Marx–Muhammad Pact" was coined by Lind? The Lind source only shows that he used it--not coined it. The only thing we can do in this article with proper citations is quote from the proponents of the idea--and that's not writing an encyclopedia article. gren グレン 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't the place to discuss it, but could Wikiquote use articles on Leftist-Islamist Alliance or Marx-Muhammad pact? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a non-notable neoblogism. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there aren't many sources about the idea... just sources advocating the idea... which would introduce OR. gren グレン 01:15, 4 April 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.