Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militant Islam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 unsourced WP:OR. IrishGuy talk 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Islam[edit]

Militant Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

POV fork of Islamism and Islam as a political movement and Islamic extremist terrorism. Totally unsourced. Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous afd: Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete September 18 2003.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note2: User Bless sins has removed all the unsourced information from the article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: That constitute as blanking. Luckily it was reverted. In the future please use "citation needed" tag.
COMMENT: Why would users want to put in unsourced information, when the citation tag has been up for two months, and no one has sourced this? Wikipedia says unsourced material does NOT belong.Bless sins 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed. While there is a place for {{cn}} tags for a reasonable period of time, they are not an indefinite excuse or get-out-of-jail-free card for unsourced info. What part of WP:NOR and WP:ATT are people having problems with. No WP:RS, no info, no arguments. Simple. Merbabu 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The above "vote" is from the AFD starter. George Leung 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You have to be kidding. This is a lengthy, well-written article on a phrase that is commonly used in English-language, western media. If it's poorly sourced then it needs sourcing, not deletion. - Richard Cavell 23:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This concept is already covered by the articles mentioned by the nominator. Content from this essay should be transferred to one or several of those articles. Stebbins 23:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a very well established article, possibly in need of a few more references, possibly not. Cloveoil 23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How in wikipedia is it possible that an article that contains ZERO sources, "possibly not" need a "few more references"?Bless sins 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If the article about The Pope had no references, would you nominate it for deletion, or simply add in references? Cloveoil 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Very informative article.Biophys 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. As the contributor is a Muslim herself, both the article AND AFD nominator may be treading on WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, and/or WP:NOT#SOAP. Both have pointed out valid reasons, and seems to present it in a professional manner. Thus, as of now, i will just comment and be neutral. George Leung 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a great article with interesting content, which is separate from all those other 3 articles. Merging would make other articles unwieldy but I agree, its lacking sources and that should be the first step before nominating it for deletion. I believe nominator Kirbytime has engaged in vote stacking for this nomination ([1], [2], [3]) by contacting other users having a favourable opinion of Islam and informing them of this deletion. --Matt57 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I found those users by looking at the history of the page and finding the most recent contributors (not vandalism reverters, however). And having a "favorable" opinion of Islam is not against Wikipedia policy. Matt, if you can find any more users who have edited this article and are willing to engage in this afd, by all means invite them. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: How come you dont know that you're not supposed to 'vote' for your own AFD? And no, I'm not going to vote stack like you. --Matt57 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commment: Notifying users that an article they have once edited has been Afd'd is standard policy.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users).

Please do not accuse me of bad faith.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment: On second thought, the original author of this article has been banned or is untraceble. Its going to be very hard to find sources for this article because right now, this is a personal essay and O.R., even though its a great article. I dont know if it can survive another AFD due to lack of sources. --Matt57 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. --Matt57 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge. Really this content isn't at all different from the article to which the merger is proposed.Bless sins 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire article doesn't contain a single source.Bless sins 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT This user had blanked the page instead of using the "citation needed" tag in a recent edit. Also one of those User:Kirbytime had contacted, for possible vote stacking as mentioned by User:Matt57 (see here:[4]).George Leung 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT I removed unsourced material per wikipedia policies. The "citation needed" tag has been on the article for two months.Bless sins 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete per complete lack of sources and content.--Sefringle 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an original research article and against wikipedia policy.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced article about highly notable topic in world politics. Edison 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)This article's topic does not seem to fall fully within any of the articles to which a merge is suggested, and there appear to be sources from which a referenced and NPOV article could be built. Problems with POV or unreferenced content can be dealt with by the normal editing process and the {{fact}} tag. Are the works listed at the end of the article considered to meet WP:ATT? Edison 23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is not a single reference in the article. Please tell me you're joking? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I had already requested protection on this page, since User:Bless sins chose to continue blanking the page while we are going through AFD. Yes, you may argue that it is unsourced, but at least let other knows what they are voting for—which is refered to the original long article. Thank you. George Leung 23:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not so much unsourced as unusually formatted. The articles refers directly to Amed Rashid, who could certainly be used as a major, scholarly/journalistic source. Also many of "Further Reading" could be used as sources. The article needs a little help, not deletion. Edivorce 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Stub it. During the article's 4 year life it has not been sourced, at all. It totally fails WP:A. I'm sure some of it can be sourced, but I'd really recommend stubbing this such that the revision history is kept. Or someone copy it to your userpage. Right now it is 90-99% WP:OR and there is no reason or excuse for it. Western media is full of books and news article using the term and about the issue itself. --Quirex 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Common term in english language, referenced in versions not touched by whitewashers of info.Bakaman 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Per Matt57. Very informative article.Shyamsunder 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Per Matt57.--D-Boy 08:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non sourced partisan article (the "further reading" section contains only neoconservative polemical entries like Spencer etc.), amalgamation of different subjects with no explanation or references of the causes behind. TwoHorned 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely original research. Beit Or 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no actual sources.Proabivouac 04:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Got attributable sources? (→Netscott) 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TwoHorned et al. WP:INTERESTING or WP:ILIKEIT are not justifications for retaining an unsourced POV fork. ITAQALLAH 12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as forked, original research. Tarc 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into Islamic fundamentalism. For example, see the term Radical Islam. The phrase itself has a somewhat common usage, but the information is better suited to one article. ....and when I say merge I mean if there is any actual sourced information in the Militant Islam article. --ProtectWomen 18:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Notable, and relevant to todays society. Must be nurtured, referenced and expanded upon. Wikipedia is about truth.Prester John 06:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Unsourced apparent original research. The argument "well just find sources" doesn't stack up. If people can't provide sources at the time of writing it means it is original research that breaks one of wikipedia's foundations. if sourcing is not possible at the time, how on earth can it be done retrospectively? I can't understand how the pincipal of WP:OR and WP:ATT can even be up for discussion. Merbabu 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- utter lack of sourcing. BYT 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. IP198 18:40, 20 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Militant_Islam&oldid=1138082957"