Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammedans

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 delete. Metamagician3000 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammedans

This page appears to be a quote from a primary source....why is its own article? Dlayiga 21:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --tyomitch 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Shawn 15:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This nomination was incomplete, listing now. - Liberatore(T) 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like the ramblings of a mad-man. ---J.S (t|c) 22:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and replace with Redirect to Muslim. It's kind of an archaic term but some might still use it in a search. Fan1967 22:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK, don't redirect, per Charles below, just delete. A few paragraphs from Voltaire do not constitute an article. Fan1967 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Muslim.Weak keep Charles below makes an interesting point... if the term is a notable insult there might be an article in it (as long as the current content does not remain) origin, how widely used, when it stopped being widely used etc etc. Not bothered if it gets deleted though. - Motor (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've given this more thought, and, though I do find the term offensive, it has a history (and is still, though rarely, used) and is a notable term used to refer to Muslims. As such, it perhaps should have an article, as Motor indicates, without the current content. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the origins of the word, and when, and under what conditions, it fell out of use. ---Charles 08:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Do not redirect to Muslim as Mohammedan is a term of insult to Muslims. Furthermore, as this is nothing but a long quote from a work by Voltaire, the value or purpose of which is unstated, in what way would it add to an article on Islam? ---Charles 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect Even though Muslims object to the term it in general use in Enlgish in the past and would be a reasonable search term. Eluchil404 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Question if this is from a 1764 source text, why does it make reference to events occuring from 1769 to 1773? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't understand the purpose of the article as it is now Deleuze 00:11, 17 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.