Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhimmi

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 of the debate was Speedy Keep, absolutely. Obviously not everything in the article is POV, and to the extent we do find POV there, on which issue I disclaim opinion, an AfD is not the proper remedy. Your citation from WP:AFD is contrived and inapplicable. This nomination is very misguided at best, and to continue this discussion would be counterproductive to our encyclopedic goals. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi

Blatant NPOV violations. Article is almost entirely produced using views of controversial authors such as Bat Ye'or. WP:NPOV policy on not giving undue weight to a certain perspective goes totally ignored in this article. Much of the article lists 'facts' that are supported by the writings of Bat Ye'or, a highly controversial writer who has been critisized often for being more of a polemic than a scholar (see talk page on Dhimmi). There is very little, if any, trust between editors, with all sides pushing their own view on the subject. His Excellency... 15:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for deletion: From WP:AFD : All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace.

The reason for which this article is a prime candidate for deletion from WP main namespace is primarily the first one, NPOV. WP:NPOV lists various rules in regards to keeping articles fair and objective. WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation makes the distinction between a 'fact' and an opinion. A statement can be termed a fact if no serious dispute exists as to its truth. The entirety of this article presumes the views of highly controversial writers as being facts. An account from Stillman's or Bat Ye'or's book regarding a historic occurance that could be percieved as oppressive (say, restrictions on clothing or inability to bear weaponry), that has been seen to have occured at any point in history, is reproduced as fact and as a generic trait of the Dhimmi system, followed by the citation link.

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight speaks to the need to give a balanced account of all significant sides on the topic. This article is entirely based on the perspective of several orientalists. An overwhelmingly large proportion of the article is founded on Bat Ye'or's works. Bat Ye'or's credibility as a scholar has been critisized by other, more reknowned, scholarship (Bernard Lewis, for example). She has been critisized for her polemic tone and selective gathering of sources for her work. She has also been critisized for her lack of academic training in the subject she speaks and writes so frequently about. She is an activist.

Other points soon to follow.

All other means to correct this problem have been exausted (read talk page) His Excellency... 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree unless a lot of goodwill and hard work goes into clearing it up. I can see the problems but wouldn't be able to contribute much to the solution. Itsmejudith 15:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be an important concept in Islam. NPOV problems are not inherent in the article subject, and should be sorted out through means other than AfD. David L Rattigan 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • PS. Don't wish to infuriate anyone who already has exhausted their patience trying other ways of saving the article. David L Rattigan 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per David L. Rattigan above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per David L Rattigan. Undeniably a notable topic, and controversy is not grounds for deletion. The solution to such problems is for both sides to work towards a mutually acceptable compromise, not to delete the article altogether. Tevildo 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually according to WP:AFD, NPOV violation (and this article hosts a particularly flagrant one) is the first listed reasonable cause for deletion. His Excellency...
• Strong Keep This article is important factual information that is under constant attack to remove it from wikipedia, this AFD is just the latest escalation of this. This attidude of warfare is really only held by a few editors on both sides, others like Aminz and Merzbow have worked hard to try and make this a good article.Hypnosadist 16:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete For reasons I've explained. His Excellency... 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, is the nominator allowed to list a separate "vote"? David L Rattigan 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't he be? Don't presidential candidates visit the ballot box? His Excellency... 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Because nomination is your vote Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Like Fiddle Faddle said. I've just never seen a nominator post a separate vote before, so it doesn't seem to be the convention. And if it isn't the convention, I'd say it's misleading, since it will be interpreted as a second vote for deletion after the nominator's. Anyway, I'm sure someone knows the official policy on this. David L Rattigan 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • When votes are counted at the end, how often is the nomination counted as a vote? Never. If there's a rule that suggests nominators of an AFD forego their right to vote, I've never heard of it. His Excellency... 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Perhaps the word "vote" is misleading. As we are reminded so often this is not a ballot. It is an expression of an opinion backed by facts. The community judges the facts. I have a strong suspicion that "the greater the rhetoric the less valid the point", but that is a wholly personal view. Expressions of anger or bewilderment do nothing here. Hard and attributabel facts are the things which carry weight. Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article is notable. The topic is notable. It has a place here. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per DR.--Rockero 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Important subject, any POV issues should be fixed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just separate practize from ideology and this article will be just fine. Intangible 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• 'My request: Votes are being filed on impulse rather than actual observation. Please actually read the article and the dispute on the talk page before giving your vote. The notability of the topic is not in question. WP:AFD recognizes that ALL articles must be subject to the policy of NPOV. There is absolutely no possibility of Dhimmi reflecting an NPOV. Take the time to study the article before voting. His Excellency... 16:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)'

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.