Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secular Islam Summit

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 except signature updates.

The result was keep; ample coverage by reliable sources is demonstrated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Islam Summit

Previously nominated for {{prod}}. Although the tag had been in place for five days, it was removed before the article could be deleted.

I'm not convinced this article can ever meet Wikipedia standards. Most importantly, it fails verification. There were no references at all on Google Books or JSTOR. The first couple pages on regular Google search were all blogs and other unreliable sources. This deletion rationale was described as "nonsense" by User:Bwalker5435, but we delete articles for nonexistent verification all the time. *** Crotalus *** 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check to see if the two sources cited were real? If they are, then this is a keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the "external links" section and this is definitely real and has been reported by notable news sources. Speedy keep. Hazillow (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a small number of passing references in newspapers and newsmagazines. That might qualify for a mention on Wikinews, but not on Wikipedia. I just don't see how this meeting has had any real long-term impact, or else it would have been mentioned by some scholarly source somewhere. One concern I have is that Wikipedia's lengthy coverage of this minor conference violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How would this violate NPOV? This is a factual article about a factual event. There is no POV. And how is this coverage "lengthy?" And you can spin tons of things as "passing references." The summit was notable; please check this. Fifteen hits. Is this a "passing reference?"

"In St. Petersburg, the Secular Islam Summit, sponsored by a humanist organization called the Center for Inquiry, featured Muslim speakers who ranged from angry ex-believers to devout reformers. They differed sharply on particulars, but all shared the conviction that Islam must be compatible with secular democracy. Their closing manifesto, "The St. Petersburg Declaration," affirmed the separation of mosque and state, gender equality in personal and family law, and unrestricted critical study of Islamic traditions."

Also, many of the speakers at the summit are notable individuals, for what it is worth. Keep. Hazillow (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This did happen, and it is useful and relevant information. I don't see why it should go Jpineda84 (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper

Keep an article in the Washington Post and live coverage on CNN alone give adequate verifiable sources and clear notability. Add in articles in the Wall Street Journal and the Toronto Sun and the US News and World report and there can be no doubt that this is well sourced and notable. Gwernol 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Center for Inquiry, the organazation behind the summit. Although there was coverage from reliable sources, the coverage wasn't substantial enough to make this one-time event establish long term notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 3 March 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.