The footballer player in question's article page was deleted because he was yet to make his professional debut. However he has now made is professional debut thus it is time for Administrator to release his article page from lockdown in order to create the article. [1]Supergunner08 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like a userspace draft was moved over shortly after this listing. This should probably be closed. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List of killings of Muhammad – Relist on AfD. The main arguments for overturning are that there was no consensus on NPOV and NPOV is not a reason for deletion, and that there was no consensus on the sources. Proponents of endorsing, however, felt that there was consensus that the article was a POV coatrack and questioned the suitability of several sources. At this point, it may appear to be no consensus, but I believe a relist would be beneficial for these reasons: 1) More time should be given to develop the issues raised by DGG. 2) Wiqi55 and Mkativerata provide good arguments on how Guillaume's translation and Muir's book are not suitable as sources, but those were hardly mentioned in the original AfD. DRV is not AfD round 2, and AfD round 2-like comments belong in an actual AfD round 2. 3) There are other possibilities to consider, such as a smerge suggested by S Marshall. – King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The closing admin User:Spartaz was queried about this deletion decision last week. He responded with a request for sources, which were given (see User talk:Spartaz#List of killings of Muhammad). There has been no reply, so perhaps it's time to open this review.
Originally I intended to serve as the closing admin. However, after reviewing the article and the deletion rationale, I decided to participate in the debate instead. For the record, although I argued against the deletion rationale, I have no dog in this fight; I am fine with the article existing or not existing. My main concern here is the closure of the debate.
For contentious articles like this, there were the usual problems with single purpose accounts as well as improper SPA tagging of accounts. But in the end, it seemed that among trusted, high-volume contributors (including two admins who supported keeping), there was no consensus to delete.
The closing admin's rationale was: The killer arguments are NPOV and the need for sources to specifically discuss this as a separately notable subject.
Addressing those two points:
NPOV: There was no consensus regarding NPOV. Delete proponents claimed that the article promotes an agenda. Keep proponents claimed that the topic of assassination is not controversial among scholars of Arabian history, and Wikipedia isn't censored.
Sources: There was no consensus concerning whether the sources were sufficient. Delete proponents felt the sources were lacking. Keep proponents disagreed, claiming that the article contains sources discussing the topic, and offering sources in the debate (See also the closing admin's talk page).
Note to all: A deletion review IS NOT "AfD round 2". The purpose here is not to continue the original debate, but rather to determine if the closure reflected the consensus (or lack thereof) in consideration of the arguments already presented. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you to the nominator for so helpfully telling us how to conduct a DRV.
It seems to me that the questions here are: (1) Whether a local lack of consensus can overrule our NPOV policy and allow non-neutral material to be retained; (2) How much weight to give to arguments that do not address the reasons for the nomination; (3) How much weight to give to Roscolese's argument that the list constituted original research and a synthesis; and (4) Whether Biophys' merge suggestion was a reasonable alternative to deletion (given that WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD enjoin us to exhaust the alternatives before deleting material).
As for question 1, I think this one's crystal clear and simple to express. If something cannot be made into a NPOV article, then there is no place for it in Wikipedia. No matter how many sources there are. On question 2, I would say that there is no weight to be given to those arguments. It doesn't matter how many sources there are or how reliable the sources are, because the reason for deletion has nothing to do with sources. Thus Spartaz was quite right to disregard a very large number of !votes. On question 3, I would say that the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH arguments were substantial and well-argued, but they effectively countered during the debate and should receive relatively little weight in the close. Question 4 opens a potential route to a compromise but I'm not overenamoured of it in this case. I don't think it's a good idea to create pointy articles about major religious figures.
All in all my position is endorse, with a barnstar to Spartaz for coming to a decision when it must have been tempting to come to a compromise.—S MarshallT/C 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I inserted that reminder because I have seen DRVs for highly contentious articles get out of hand in the past.
Regarding the neutrality of the material, that was one of the points of contention, and there was no clear consensus on that point, with the keep proponents arguing based on the sources. Spartaz's reason for deletion and followup question on his own talk page specifically focused on sources, so I don't see the logic in dismissing the arguments (on both sides) regarding sources, for which there was also no consensus. Finally, I personally wouldn't support a merge, in particular the Muhammad article is already too long and such a detailed review of his involvement in assassinations, while it may be worthy of a separate article, is a bit WP:UNDUE for the Muhammad article. I do think the title should use the word "assassinations" rather than "killings". I also congratulate Spartaz for tackling this difficult debate, although the closure still appears irregular to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really hard case. From an AfD viewpoint I'd !vote to delete on the basis that I view the list article as an attempt to include negative material about the Muhammad, just as a "list of people Jesus swindled" would be. If there were RSes that made it clear this is either A) a highly notable topic or B) had put together a list like this themselves, I'd say we should have the article. But if not, it feels like an OR COATRACK to me. I don't agree that the topic is so NPOV that we can't have such an article, I'd just want there to be a real body of work in the area. Now, from a DRV viewpoint, was there a basis for deletion? I'd have to say so. The keep arguments were, in my opinion, fairly weak and the large number of new/SPS accounts gives the closer a lot of room to discount !votes. I felt the sources that were proposed were weak and so the notability argument was weak. I feel the assertion that lists need not be notable was a fine argument (that I often agree with), but it's had mixed results at AfD/DrV. I never felt the COATRACK issue was addressed and the attempt at defeating the NOR arguments was a bit of a stretch. The sources provided seemed weak and only passing mentions. I'd say that NC would also have been a reasonable reading of the discussion, but delete was probably a better one. So endorse deletion. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to CMarshall, (1) there is no topic capable of being made into an article that cannot be made into a NPOV article. Any and everything, if it can be discussed at all, can be discussed in a NPOV fashion. NPOV does not mean "the POV that I and most of us approve of." Anything can be discussed if there are sufficient reliable sources for the discussion that permit the presentation of the various POVs. As there are sources for all sorts of different views on the religious and military career of Mohammed, any aspect of it can be discussed from a NPOV. If, for example, one has the POV of a devout Muslim, one would necessarily think any fair discussion of his career will lead an unprejudiced reader to a wholly positive view of him: if some sources are prejudiced against him, better sources will refute them. The argument here would have to be that by assembling these in a list, the impression given is inevitably negative, but I consider that the sort of judgement which we are not entitled to give. Another possible argument is the difficulty of making a distinction between political assassination and punishment for crime and normal" warfare; this can be dealt by giving the circumstances more fully (2) The issues raised by the nominator were discussed and refuted. (a)There were good modern secondary sources as well as historical sources; (b)almost all the historical sources used (and all the primary ones) were by authors favorable to Mohammed; (c)there were sources cited in the discussing discussing this particular topic as a topic, (d)even though that is not necessary for a list, (e)that there were somer erroneous entries is not an argument for deletion of this or any other list, but for editing; the final version of it should be pruned further: I would in particular remove Banu Qurayza tribe, & the "approved of" (f)the tone & wording indeed strikes me as NPOV, but can be corrected (3) by the "NPOV and OR arguments" you presumably mean the arguments that there was a failure of NPOV and a dependence on OR. Failure of NPOV is always correctable and is never a reason for deletion, though it can be a reason for change of title or drastic editing. OR is a reason for deletion if it impossible to find sources that will overcome it. But in this case it was shown that such sources are available. The assembly and collection of material is not OR, but a necessary and inevitable part of writing every Wikipedia article. No sourced encyclopedia can be written otherwise, (4). It is the community not the closer who decides if compromise is possible. The possibilities were not adequately discussed. If they were not discussed then, they can be discussed now, or at a second AfD. We tend to do a preliminary discussion here to see if there would be some reason for expecting a different result, & then follow it up at the AfD if it continues contentious.
As for the actual close, the first reason given is failure of NPOV. that reason is against policy; it is not ever a reason to delete an article. The second is OR. This is a matter for the community to judge, as it is a matter of degree. The community did not seem clear about it.
Was there an actual reason to delete? there might have been. NPOV is not a reason to delete, but a fork or split of an article to express a POV is a reason to delete or merge or redirect. I would return the article to AfD to have a discussion focused on this. I'm not sure at this point what I would say to it. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per DGG (yes, I know he didn't articulate a bolded vote. That doesn't mean that his contribution isn't worth reading thoroughly.) Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is. My immediate reaction is that while it is technically possible to rewrite most things from a neutral point of view, there comes a point where a keep !vote makes no sense, even for the most rampant inclusionist, because what you would be !voting to keep would be entirely different content with an entirely different name. Such is the case here.
Admitting to my own bias, I must say that I do not think Wikipedia should host this content. There are places where it's appropriate to publish broadsides or polemics against major world religions, but an encyclopaedia isn't one of them. Our coverage of Muhammad needs to be very carefully balanced, such that we tell the whole truth while remaining neutral and factual. Devoting a separate list to the people Muhammad is alleged to have had killed is certainly not a necessary part of offering encyclopaedic coverage about him. And it certainly is guaranteed to cause (real or simulated) offence, attract tendentious editors like flies round a dead dog, and breed drama and contention.
This doesn't mean we can't cover the topic. What it means is that NPOV prevents us from covering the topic as a separate standalone list and WP:UNDUE implies that the topic needs to be covered in much less depth.
You might have been able to convince me that "overturn to smerge" would be an appropriate outcome, except for the fact that I can't see how to get to a smerge on the basis of that debate.—S MarshallT/C 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to S Marshall's thoughtful post, we are treading back into topics already discussed in the AfD, for which there was no consensus. Counterpoints to the statements above have already been made in the AfD (e.g. that the sources treat the topic in a neutral fashion, that historians accept that assassination has been an integral part of Arabian history, that Muhammad's involvement with assassination of notable individuals has been covered in depth by multiple sources, and so on). Those are all points on which there was no consensus. This discussion we're having here should be about whether the close was proper, based on that AfD discussion, not whether the close was proper based on personal perceptions about whether the topic is neutral. NPOV isn't a reason to delete, and NPOV doesn't prevent us from covering a topic that appears to be pretty well sourced. The potential to cause offense or attract drama isn't really relevant — plenty of contentious articles already exist on Wikipedia (the Muhammad article attracts offended Muslims on an almost daily basis). ~Amatulić (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By convention, DRV does have a certain amount of latitude to re-discuss the AfD. This is particularly true in this case, where DGG's view is that the debate should be relisted to consider specific points. There's no way to discuss the whys and wherefores of that without rehashing some of the previous AfD's content.—S MarshallT/C 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and re-present at AfD. Per DGG, the primary reason given for Deleting was NPOV which is not supported by the actual policy. NPOV provides grounds for rewriting and restructuring problematic articles (specifics are here), not deleting them. The secondary reason given at closure was lack of sufficient reliable sources which was strongly contested during the debate and has since been addressed by Amatulic (who provided scholarly and reliable references on the topic here). While I respect the closing admin for tackling a complex and controversial issue, it seems appropriate to bring this one back for deeper discussion. Doc Tropics 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NPOV is policy and articles can be deleted if they are nothing but policy violations, requiring a wholesale rewrite to salvage. Instead of debating whether POV is a reason to delete an article, we should consider if the article actually was POV. ThemFromSpace 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, we absolutely "should consider if the article actually was POV", that is exactly the point of overturning the deletion decision and returning the article to AfD for further discussion. As Amatulic pointed out in the nomination, this discussion is not "AfD Round 2", but an attempt to determine if "AfD Round 2" is appropriate. Based on the evidence presented above, it does seem to be. Doc Tropics 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, which is the opinion I came to after writing it out. Looking at S Marshall's reply to me, and Thenfromspace's comment a little above: Starting over would make sense if there were no usable fundamental structure. But at least the basic list and the references are usable. What I would like to see is a proper paragraph or two on each event, including a reference to secondary views of it from early & modern Moslem sources. In most cases, it's obvious what justification would be given, but there should still be a reference to discussions. This is beyond my ability and interests, however, and I don't really like making suggestions that some other people do a lot of work. I think the real objection to the article is that there is some reason from the general tone to think it was written with a biased intent, and this is something we should not tolerate. It may have been, and we shouldn't tolerate it--WP has in the past taken action against people writing a string of articles all having implied criticism of a particular religion. The few other articles of the original editor show no such bias, & nobody would even imagine such a thing of the ed. bringing the DelRev request. In any case, this is an article, & we can't really judge intent, and need to look only at what's actually there & what use can be made of it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Once the infestation of banned socks and SPAs are discarded, and the "keep i like it", "keep it is interesting" calls weighted next to nothing, the consensus to delete is rather clear. Close is within admin discretion, no wrongdoing found, and "I disagree" is not a valid DRV filing reason. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those alleged SPAs were somewhat ambitiously tagged, and shouldn't have been tagged as such according to WP:SPATG. A couple even objected, apparently regular contributors with dynamic IPs. One could as easily discard the "delete I don't like it" arguments as well. I took all that into account prior to listing this DRV. If an alleged SPA presents a thoughtful argument more than just "me too", the argument still matters. As such, the consensus was not clear to me. I agree the close was within admin discretion, but the closing admin's rationale about NPOV wasn't policy-based, and the rationale regarding sources seemed incorrect. Disagreeing with what appears to be a faulty rationale is a perfectly valid DRV filing reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained succinctly right above. Not all of us who agree have to restate the obvious.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 02:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Spartaz did not weigh the !votes of obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets and other single-purpose accounts, or other invalid arguments (ie. "it is interesting," "it is true," "it would be censorship to remove it," etc.), very heavily, which is both within hir discretion as an admin and also just good policy generally. Absent those, there's a very clear consensus to delete. Moreover, even the keep !voters who attempted to make policy-based arguments nevertheless failed, by and large, even to try to address the deletion rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale is summarized at the top of this DRV. Saying nobody tried to address it is a blatant mischaracterization. Rather than summarizing what the closing admin did, please address the deletion rationale as described above (using NPOV and sourcing to justify deletion). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what DRV is for. I made my argument for deletion at the AfD, and I'm not going to continue arguing for deletion on the basis of NPOV, SYN, etc.; I'm endorsing Spartaz's close because zie was correct to give little weight to sockpuppets, non-policy votes, and other !votes that did not attempt to engage with the ongoing discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No argument about the correctness of weights as you describe. However, this is exactly what DRV is for. The reasons you list for endorsing the close aren't Spartaz's rationale for deletion; those are just Spartaz's premises leading up to the actual deletion rationale, which cited NPOV and sourcing. This DRV was opened because the validity of that rationale is questionable, as others have eloquently explained above. Nobody expects you to restate arguments you have already presented. If you endorse a close, however, I'd like to see you explain how the actual closing rationale is valid. As others have eloquently explained above, this is not as clear-cut as you might think. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. An article about an important subject that was probably deleted out of political correctness. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user is here purely because he is stalking me. Attempts to re-fight the AfD are generally invalid anyway, but this is a particularly poor specimen of a DRV !vote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although allegations of stalking are irrelevant here also. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help but notice, that dynamic-ip users are flagged as SPA without any regard for the issues they raise. This could be understood if they were just unbased “me too” votes with no rationale, but they aren't. Now other user's votes are being overturned because Roscelese doesn't like him, again, without considering any rationale. Since when Wikipedia is personal? I don't vote this time, since my IP didn't magically become static and I decided that making several hundreds of trivial contributions to random articles just to prove my point isn't worth my time. I strongly believe that votes must be taken neither by numbers nor by contribution of the users who cast them, but by the rationale they present. This wasn't and isn't the case here, unfortunately. 79.182.4.98 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that dishonest people sometimes attempt to influence discussions (not just AfDs, but a variety of other venues here. Some even ban IPs outright, such as votes for adminship and bureaucrats) by logging out of their real account to double-vote, banned/block users come to participate where they are prohibited, and so on. That is why there is an emphasis on not only established user accounts, but also users with a semblance of an edit history to demonstrate that they really are one person making one argument. Making an account is not a requirement and likely never will be, but doing so better establishes yourself as an actual persona within the community, if you really are a person who does not fall into the above scenarios. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This logic is perfectly reasonable when sheer number of votes is what counts, e.g. elections, to prevent double voting. But if the important bit is the rationale, the argument that is presented, does it really matter who presents the arguments? If it does, I admit being unaware of that policy. I recognize the potential of abuse, but as I pointed out before, establishing an account with several non-trivial contributions is rather easy, and as long as this "verified account" matters more than the actual arguments presented by its owner, wikipedia's AfDs and DRVs will suffer from bias. 79.182.4.98 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but our community has set up certain rules, and among those rules is that misbehavior will result in one's editing privileges (both editing articles, and editing discussion pages) being taken away. It doesn't mean that the blocked editor doesn't have useful things to say, but they always have the option of improving their behavior and regaining their editing privileges. Evading the block through temporary accounts or IPs will only, as we see, mean that those contributions will be discarded, because the policies that allow us to maintain a safe, collegial, and productive editing environment become meaningless if we sacrifice them in the interest of hearing out every argument in a discussion. Similarly, a non-blocked user might have an argument worth hearing, but if they try to stack a discussion by using multiple accounts or IPs to post it more than once, they are circumventing the consensus-building process. These are both particularly true in articles related to conflicts between Jews and Muslims, in which many users have been blocked or topic-banned and which are generally acknowledged to be rife with sockpuppets and meatpuppets. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion - I've already stated my case against the deletion of this list on the following link, if you care to read it. (please see : User talk:Spartaz#List of killings of Muhammad). In a nutshell, the article is salvageable, is reliable, and verifiable with plenty of both academic, religious, and historical texts both primary, secondary and everything in the middle. The subject in itself is notable as I explained on Spartaz's talk page. The deletion was conducted hastily with a clear majority interested in salvaging the list, and a small minority using populist tactics to censor it.
Lets not throw out the baby with the dirty water, but instead fix up the article where a consensus is reached. That position has been overwhelmingly supported by a multitude of arguments both based on logic and rules of Wikipedia. The few vocal opponents are spending their time attempting to discredit every single supporter of saving the article - calling some sock puppets and meat puppets, others are hate group forums trolls, and now even a mysterious 'stalker' made an appearance. Yet no clear argument comes out of their lips that have not already been addressed numerous times. Please overturn the deletion of this article. Thank you for your time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're linking to your comment on Spartaz's talkpage as an example of sound policy-based reasoning that should get the article kept. Your argument was that a Libyan leader was recently assassinated, which shows that Muslims kill people a lot and that we thus need more articles on Muslims killing people. This is both POV and OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, you have little credibility since your primary weapons are vilifying those who disagree with you and now blatantly making things up about what I wrote, since I can't believe you to be that ignorant. You use typical and quite transparent populist tactics - lie, deceive, twist and falsely accuse - all in the name of achieving your end goal, at any cost. I feel bad for the stalker now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Per DGG's well-thought-out reasoning above. Also, if this is relisted, is it possible to semi-protect the AfD so we don't have to deal with the flood of SPAs? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since a lot of users here are claiming there were in fact lots of sources, I feel as though I should point out that exactly two sources were produced that discussed the topic: one (Gabriel) was borderline acceptable, but the other (Osborn) was an anti-Muslim tract that wouldn't have been an appropriate source if it were published on JihadWatch today and doesn't suddenly become acceptable because it was published in the nineteenth century in printed form. Other sources, like Muir, Glubb, primary religious texts, etc., may be reliable, but they are biographies of Muhammad and give these killings no more weight than any other incident of Muhammad's life, ie. cannot be said to discuss the topic. One might think, as DGG does, that it is not necessary for sources to discuss a topic in order to have an article on it, but please be aware that this is the argument you are making. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not necessarily necessary for a list article. That's what we're discussing here. I remind Roscelese and others that we are not here to debate the quality of the sources. Roscelese's characterization of the sources as "borderline" or "tract" are personal opinions that aren't something to be decided here; those are best discussed at WP:RSN. Muir and others devote significant space to the various assassinations; while not discussed as an overall topic, the assassinations are discussed. I remind everyone that this article is a list. We are here to determine if the closure rationale for a list article was proper. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If arguments for overturning the deletion are going to claim there were sources, it is proper to respond to those claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: First, I did not see any reliable sources that establish the notability of this list. Compared to other notable lists about Muhammad (e.g., his wives), there are no academic books or chapters devoted to those who were assassinated. The lack of reliable secondary sources and the problematic nature of the primary sources would mean that any attempt to write such a list would have to rely on heavy OR and SYNTH.
Second, I agree with Roscelese's last comment with regards to the reliability of sources. I would also like to add that the most cited primary source in the article is Guillaume's translation, which specialists of Islamic history do not consider as reliable. In other words, any claim made about Ibn Ishaq based on such translation is dubious. For references, see Humphreys, R. Stephen (1991). Islamic History: A framework for Inquiry (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN0691008566., and Tibawi, Abdul Latif (1956). Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra, a critique of Guillaume's English translation: the life of Muhammad. OUP..
Another frequently cited source is a 19th-century book by William Muir, which Historian Carl W. Ernst describes as "A classic Christian missionary text attacking Muhammad"[2] often preferred by anti-Islam websites (see also Ernst's book). Promotional or extremist sources, or ones that are acknowledged by specialists to be so, are not useful for citing claims about third parties (per WP:V). The Gabriel's book is also a borderline case considering that he "brags" of having friends that can read Arabic (he obviously doesn't know the language, hence non-specialist). He further concludes that "responsibility for any errors rests with me alone" (p.xvi). I'm not sure what editorial policy is that, but I'm familiar with his book from another discussion and his lack of knowledge of the primary sources is evident. All in all, I have yet to a see any reliable source that establishes the notability of this list or concept. The sources we currently have do not actually list such assassinations, and most of which does not even refer to the discrepant primary sources. Wiqi(55) 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the opinions of the sources, these are notable or classic sources of historical significance. If such a source discusses a topic, that should be sufficient for an article topic. This is certainly not a valid reason to delete a list article, particularly if the list article can be written to explain the sources in the proper context as Wiqi55 describes. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. Agree with DGG. Enough sources have been provided, no reason to delete. Nahum (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per S Marshall. I'm just not seeing grounds for overturning, with apologies to DGG. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the AfD became a cesspit and this deletion review has become a similar cesspit. Things we can't talk about we must remain silent on. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't AfD round 2. If you want to talk about other issues, the solution would be to overturn and relist in a second AfD, as others have suggested, no? :) ~Amatulić (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Stuartyeates is making an AfD argument. A metacomment on the fact that the AfD was a mess and that this discussion is now a mess - with people trying to re-fight the AfD, crying censorship, etc. - is not a comment on the deleted article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I see no POV or RS issues, and deleting this would clearly be censorship. --Galassi (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't AfD, and "deleting an inappropriate article is censorship" wouldn't pass muster even if it were AfD. Please discuss the merits of the close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One only needs to read relevant tracts of the William Muir source -- relied on heavily in the aticle -- to see how correct the arguments for deletion were. On that note, Wiqi155's analysis above is most compelling. The analysis of those on the keep side here and at the AfD -- that the mere presence of sources is sufficient -- has been demonstrated to be lacking in rigour. For example, Amatulic responds above "If such a source discusses a topic, that should be sufficient for an article topic". That is an absurdly simplistic approach to editing that carries through into the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, so you're saying that if a notable or historically significant source might disparage a topic, it shouldn't be considered? You're advocating that Wikipedia adopt a specific POV, or represent the sources fairly? It doesn't matter to me whether this article is kept or deleted, but so far the arguments about NPOV, whether it be the sources or the article itself, are not valid arguments for deletion, as others have stated. That's why I opened this DRV, because the AfD closing rationale, based on NPOV and sourcing, are not valid reasons to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion I can't see that the oveturn arguments have successfully challenged my close and many of them rehash the afd rather then discuss the closing statement. Just to confirm a closing admin has discretion to depreciate spa/ip votes and this fell enough within the admins closing discretion that I could choose nc or delete. NPOV issues with the sourcing clearly haven't been addressed and delete was therefore the correct close. SpartazHumbug! 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
