Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic forex

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. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic forex[edit]

{{tl:hangon}} tag was placed after prod, so assuming prod was contested. Prod Content was "Unsourced personal essay. Confusing. Original research." tagged by User:Wperdue. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such a mess, complete with misspellings, it needs to be deleted and re-done. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a gsearch shows it to be a clearly notable topic, but gut this essay down to a stub. JJL (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily merge to Forex scam after removing all the unsourced essay junk. A google search does suggest that this is a big enough cross-categorization to deserve its own article, but right now the article is such a mess it's not worth looking at. It should be a small section (or even just a sentence or two) in the main Forex article for now, and once it's written like a real article it can be spun back out to its own page. And by the way, once it is moved to its own page it should not be under this title, it should be something clearer such as Forex scams in Islam or something. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no objection to this--probably makes sense for now. JJL (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Now that I look at the article again, most of it (the entire "What Islamic Schoolers [sic] Say" section) is not only unreferenced essay, but is also written in more or less unintelligible English—possibly machine translated. Since the merge I proposed is not anything that requires admin tools, I will probably just wait about one more day on this AfD and then, if no real objects have been raised by then, just boldly do the redirect myself (because of the unintelligible nature of the article, there's really no content to merge; just redirect it and then add one sentence or two in the parent article about how forex is apparently a big deal in Islamic law). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went to the article this morning to do the redirecting and merging I described above, but once I looked at the source more closely I realized it's a blog post and it doesn't say anything that would contribute to the notability of this topic. Furthermore, a closer look at the ghits I saw before shows that most of them are similarly insignificant—almost all appear to be forum posts or faq pages asking about whether or not forex is halal. That would just make this a random and non-notable cross-categorization; there are certainly thousands of "is X halal" discussions, for every topic you can imagine, and they shouldn't all have an independent Wikipedia page, this is not HalalWiki. So, I no longer believe there is any content worth merging, and I say the whole thing should be deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see over 6000 ghits (and others for Islam forex) including two gscholar hits [1], [2]; also, Amazon sells something with the phrase in the title [3]. It seems to be a recognized concept and at least a redirect seems appropriate. JJL (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not improved & sourced. As is, this page seems to be almost exclusively original research. While the subject may be notable, the content needs to be sourced as to not violate WP:OR Passportguy (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No waiting, just delete. WP:OR Niteshift36 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-write in English. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clear reasons given by Passportguy and RHaworth. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 6 June 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.