Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dajjal flag

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. I'm closing this early before this becomes an orgy of pile on deletes, as there's no chance this topic could be encyclopedic - if any of us could fathom what the topic actually is. Fences&Windows 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal flag[edit]

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

Article is beyond Original Research and/or Synthesis. It's a pretty solid example of word salad, contains zero encyclopedic content, and the "footnotes" are all either citing benign points unrelated to the argument, or from highly dubious sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't understand a word of it but I can tell from the opening that it seeks to advance a viewpoint rather than document an existing one. What that viewpoint actually is eludes me. In fact, reading it for a second time, I think it is giving me a headache. The sections seem entirely disjointed from eachother. I can't rule out the possibility that there might be an encyclopaedic topic in here somewhere but I don't know what it might be. Apparently Dajjal is the Arabic word for "to deceive" and refers to a false prophet or false messiah (an Islamic version of the Antichrist concept) but it is not clear what, if anything, this has to do with flags. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes under "WP:utterly bonkers". Seems to be a compendium of the author's personal thoughts. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fairly obviously. There does come a level of silliness that's really beyond toleration. Moreschi (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, editor is now trying to put almost the entire article, verbatim, into another article. See here: [1]. Is there anything we can do about such a disruptive pattern of editing? MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and incomprehensible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is nonsense. Hardyplants (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally incoherent, unsalavageable. Hans Adler 08:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as confused random gibberish. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1. Patent nonsense. and A1. No context. Шизомби (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2009 (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.