Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North African Muslim migrations to the Holy Land

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. A clear and unanimous consensus for deletion has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North African Muslim migrations to the Holy Land[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

"Original research" is the most positive I can say about this article. There should not be room for such unsourced material on Wikipedia Huldra (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking into the history of the editor who wrote this article, it is beginning to look more and more like Pushing a certain POV and WP:OR. The references provided look a bit sketchy, and no real evidence is provided. Given the high tensions the Israli-Palestinian conflict has on Wikipedia, articles related to it should be held to a high standard of reliability and citations. The user who started the articles conduct here and here shows that they are very opinonated concerning this subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced, and it reads like a machine translation of the he.wiki article. (I think editors should be applauded for translating decent articles from one language to another, but a reasonable knowledge of English seems lacking here, as idioms are translated literally.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The sourcing (or lack thereof) and motives of the article creator are too sketchy in my review of this article. An abundance of original research was compiled by an editor who it appears evident was pushing a POV and was incredibly disruptive in doing so. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for such editors, especially in a topic area that can get heated for some.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly veiled WP:POV fork from a highly disruptive WP:POV warrior. Not to mention the quality of writing and sourcing easily fails the requirements for the highly contentious topic of WP:A/I/PIA Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Inter&anthro. Several North African articles have been affected by the same problem for years.Tamsier (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I raised my concerns about the sources at the talk page some time ago, but they were not addressed. There are no WP:RS supporting the body of the article. Also the phrasing of the article title is POV as it suggests one-way migration – the sources I have read on this topic suggest two-way minor migration. Coincidentally(?!), this morning some of those sources were removed from another article here [1]. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the topic is something that "could" be a page with the addition of scholarly sources on the matter. The page now is written almost like a propaganda piece with a motive and poor sources. One of the sources is literally a google map pin. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2019 (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.