Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to Religion on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Religion}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Religion}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

Contents 1 Religion 1.1 Critical Mass (band) 2 Islam 2.1 Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque 2.2 Muhammad's slaves 2.3 List of people who left Islam 2.4 Islamonline.net 2.5 Quranic reasons for terrorism 2.6 Islamic extremist terrorism 2.7 Allaahuakbar.net 2.8 Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an 2.9 Others 3 Judaism 3.1 Demographic warfare 3.2 Ignatz Lichtenstein 3.3 Examination of Holocaust denial 3.4 Moshe Aryeh Friedman 3.5 Conservative Halakha

[edit] Religion

[edit] Islam

[edit] Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article has no reliable secondary sources and is just connected to one person's ideology, and this ideology is not notable at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are only 103 results from google, if searched for this term:[3]. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible Keep. I've updated the article with references from CNN, BeliefNet, WNYC, The American Prospect, Al Jazeera, The Washington Post, Sojourners, Center for American Progress, and Brandeis University. This is WP:SNOW now. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article still needs to be expanded, discussing how the Bill of Rights was inspired, derived, arrived at, how it was posted in a mosque, what the reactions have been around the world, and so on. But that's all improvement that can easily take place. No grounds for deletion. — coelacan talk — 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a copyright violation. Right now, this is just a reproduction of the author's work, no different than an article on a song that consisted of the name of the artist and a verbatim copy of the lyrics. If the copyvio portion was removed, there would be precious little left. - Eron ^Talk 18:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced and documented. Not in copyright violation if properly cited and sufficiently brief. This "Bill of Rights" was obviously intended to be distributed. CuriousGiselle 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it is at all obvious how the author or rights-holder intended for this to be distributed. The Beliefnet page reproducing the Bill includes the statement "Reprinted from 'Standing Alone in Mecca' by Asra Q. Nomani with permission of HarperSanFrancisco." This suggests to me that its reproduction here, without permission, would be considered a violation by the copyright holder. A fair use case could be made, if there were any sort of commentary. But that is not the case. - Eron ^Talk 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eron as copyvio. With no other content in the article than the copy violation, it ought not stand. RGTraynor 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- I have removed from the article the copyrighted text. I have no opinion on whether this subject meets our inclusion guidelines. Jkelly 21:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is notable enough. It needs [more] content, but that is not a reason to delete. I would be willing to work on it should the article not be deleted. Koweja 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and extend Alf photoman 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's slaves

Muhammad's slaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — ([Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad's slaves|View AfD])

Article is based on [4], which is an Islamic propagandist website (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Answering-Islam.org). And as reason given by User:Truthspreader on talk page that Zad al-Ma'ad is a historical document, and hence a primary source.

Major flaws include:

1. Implication that Muhammad had sexual relation with these slaves, when even the source doesn't say that except Answering-Islam.org
2. Many of the slaves were freed and it is not mentioned, as if mentioned then the article would be giving a false impression from it's title
3. Bernard Lewis 1994 does say that Muhammad and his companions had slaves without these details from Answering-Islam.org, hence this topic can be easily merged with Islam and slavery or Muhammad article, in which former already discusses this issue.

--Herald_reply 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete with conditional Merge. As per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it, it is pretty clear now that this is coming from answering-islam.org. And even if the source is correct, to conclude using Zad al-Ma'ad is Original research, being it a historical document. And as per nom, if the author can find some good sources, this article can easily fit into Islam and slavery or Muhammad article. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this is too obscure to merit its own article. KazakhPol 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete possibly mention in Islam and slavery if the information can be verified by a more reliable source. In any case this topic in no way needs a separate article. Koweja 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who left Islam

List of people who left Islam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

the general style of religious converts lists has always been "List of converts to X", because their conversion to X is what has been notable. a "List of people who left Islam" or "List of ex-A" is unnecessary and irrelevant because a) it falsely assumes ex-Y became so because of Y, and not because of their conviction in something else (i.e. religion X); b) it consists of unnecessary duplication, by "leaving Y" they have automatically become a "convert to X"'; c) there is no precedence for this as we do not have a "List of people who left Christianity", "List of people who left Hinduism", "List of people who left Athiesm", nor do we need it. d) the focus is inappropriately on negation, the title and entire purpose of such a list is implicitly loaded with a negative connotation against religion Y, and under the false premise discussed in point a) serves as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy.

i have also included the following in this nom:

• List of ex-atheists
• List of ex-Protestants
• Former Latter-day Saints
• List of ex-Roman Catholics

Delete all as unnecessary and irrelevant (previous AfD was no consensus, but it included all convert lists and not those exclusively associated with negatative identification like ex-A) -- ITAQALLAH 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment We do in fact have List of ex-atheists. We also have List of ex-Roman Catholics, List of ex-Protestants, and Former Latter-day Saints. This does not justify this list, see the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, however it does give a context that you can interpret as you choose.--T. Anthony 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That said I'll add that if it's kept it should be renamed to Former Muslims or List of ex-Muslims for consistency.--T. Anthony 14:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

i think that renders argument c) as inapplicable. in the light of that, a Rename to 'List of ex-Muslims' may be more appropriate. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not opposed to deleting all these "ex-religionist" lists even if I created one. Although for sake of balance I'd prefer they all be deleted, if not immediately then eventually, if one is deleted.--T. Anthony 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

note: i have changed the nomination to include lists of all ex-ABC's. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then weak delete all. I think things like this have a worse tendency to be non-neutral than conversion lists. Conversion lists aren't focused on what a person's rejecting, these more are. We have a List of foreign-born United States politicians, people joining something namely the US, but we wouldn't do List of politicians who renounced United States citizenship or something.--T. Anthony 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, List of ex-Muslims is a better name. --Matt57 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or delete the lists mentioned by T. Anthony with it Alf photoman 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But make sure to think about it, according to the extreme Muslims leaving Islam justifies a death fatwa --- we might be endangering lives Alf photoman 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If kept it needs to be verified and I'd be willing to put a "verify" deal on it. If people say they are ex-Muslims to the international press nothing we do here is likely to matter on the front you mean, but we should strongly avoid any "outing" or false reports on people. I think I'd mentioned at the talk page that verification is unusually urgent in this case.--T. Anthony 15:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to give in to terrorists? Those people in the lists are in no bigger danger than they were before being included in these lists. Even if they were safe before, we cant give in to terrorists, sorry. --Matt57 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 15:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Lists are just ways of categorizing people. If they converted from one religion to another, they left the first and converted to the second. IMO, it's non-neutral to prefer only the "positive," lists of what they joined, rather than the "negative," lists of what they left, as one assumes someone left a religion for a negative reason, rather than joined another for a positive reason. Only a weak keep because it's rather a boring category, still, it is just a list. KP Botany 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep all per KP Botany. I was going to say "delete all as meaningless point-scoring", but it's true that this style of list provides a kind of NPOV balance to the "converts to..." lists. — coelacan talk — 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: This is crazy. We just went through an AFD for this article. There is NO negative connotation to a "List of people who left X". Would you say there's a negative connotation to Criticism of Islam as well? Lets delete that article as well. If you say "List of people who left X" has negative connotation, then List of Muslim converts has a positive connotation. Why should negative connotation lists not be allowed? If positive ones are allowed, then negative ones should also be allowed. Using your arguement, I'll say that List of Muslim converts should not exist because its entire purpose is to give a positive connotation to the religion at hand.--Matt57 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I would say "weak delete", but since i'm a inclusionist, ill remain neutral. --Striver 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Nominator, doesn't List of Muslim converts also 'serve as a vehicle for propaganda/advocacy', in your own words? --Matt57 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamonline.net

Islamonline.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is nominated for deletition, because it does not cite any of its sources. It is completely WP:OR and is not notable. See WP:WEB I will withdraw my nomination if this is improved and becomes notable.--Sefringle 04:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment,It got sources now please remove AFD, And check the references. Mak82hyd 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Nom must have missed the "The site is owned by Sunni Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi." in the lead. --Striver 05:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy close afd is not a place to vent "article needs better sourcing", we have talk pages for that. This is a waste of wikipedai resources.--Striver 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Striver. The articles subject is notable, and it should be improved and developed instead of deleted. Comment to Striver: The reason the admin deleted the Ali Sina article was (as he himself mentioned), that the article should use better sources. So apparently it is sometimes a reason to delete articles. However, I disagree with that decision. -- Karl Meier 08:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Didn't he delete it since he viewed it as unsourceable by notable sources, and stated that it was ok to re-create if notability could be established? ... but this is maybe not related to this afd.--Striver 11:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: He said that the reason he deleted the article was lack of proper sources being used, and mentioned that it could be recreated if such sources is used when writing a new article on the subject. He didn't say anything about notability. -- Karl Meier 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong speedy Keep The website is in top 1000 website according to alexa.com ranking and quite popular and notable among muslims around the world. does not teach hatred and does not incite killing of innocents. Mak82hyd 16:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. This site is notable, as is Faith Freedom International. Both have been noted by various sources, and thus both should be kept. (Note: both are also notable because both are principal nexi of POV, where supporters of POVs gather, exchange information, and engage in action. FFI is notable because it is a focus of anti-Muslim sentiment by ex-Muslims. Likewise, Islamonline.net is a focus of pro-Muslim sentiment by Muslims. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG Speedy Keep - Stop wasting my time, see this [5]. Wikipidian 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, just as with many other websites--it's going to be hard to find 'neutral'/reliable outside commentary about this site. In a sense it's notable... but in a sense it will always create problems like FFI and other such sites have. gren グレン 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: To those who think Faith Freedom International is not notable and Islamonline.net is: Why do you think so? Explain in the light of WP:WEB and tell me how exactly this follows the policy while FFI does not. --Matt57 18:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Widely differing Alexa rating, known and notable owner. For starters. --Striver 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Widely differing? Where do we draw the line for notability of a website? Who's drawing it? It doesnt matter if the owner (Ali Sina) has a pseudonym (sp). There are 'known' website owners with a website rank of 3,345,123. --Matt57 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- non notable Astrotrain 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Like this article, I've nominated Allaahuakbar.net for deletion as well as it has a ranking of more than 300,000 according to Alexa. Sunnipath.com should also be nominated (ranking=76,000). More websites like these should be deleted if they are not notable. Category:Shi'a Islamic websites can also be studied for deleting any websites that are not notable, along with Category: Sunni Islamic websites. --Matt57 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not seeing how this site meets in a significant way, any of the criteria for WP:WEB. Before suggesting a Keep, please be sure to check WP:WEB and explain how it meets the criteria.--Matt57 03:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.islamonline.net This reference shows that this website is currently ranked 790. does it not shows its notable enough...
• Comments for all people who want this to be deleted.----- http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=28448 this reference shows it is currently second most popular website about Islam. is it still not notable enough then can u please explain me why [faith freedom internation]] even though it is not in top 20000 still being kept in wikipedia. is it biasness or what. if this article is deleted then ffi article should be deleted as well. this article is very much notable. Mak82hyd 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Search engine or Alexa ranking is not a criteria for WP:WEB.--Matt57 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

would you consider changing your decision per the evidences provided below which assert its notability and suggest that it meets WP:WEB? if not, please explain your reasoning. thanks. ITAQALLAH 04:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment let it be known that currently there are no third party links mentioning this website, which is necessary to establish notability in accordance with the WP:WEB policies.--Sefringle 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria ... no external links that satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... links to only the subject's website and Alexa do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards. —Dennette 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- website quite comfortably meets WP:WEB, noted by the US government as "the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net".[6] the SOAS describes it as "A comprehensive site covering a diverse range of issues, dedicated to promoting 'a unified and lively Islam that keeps up with modern times in all areas.'" [7]. British newspaper The Guardian devotes a significant amount of discussion about IslamOnline.net and its content, labelling it "one of the largest Muslim websites" [8]. ITAQALLAH 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • you could try a google search, but that is simply too much to sift through. alternatively you could specify edu websites, for which i found these notable resources [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and i am sure there are more. i would have searched further and provided more sources, but i simply grew tired. ITAQALLAH 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per WP:WEB. Just have a look in Google scholar for: "Islamonline" -site:islamonline.net -site:islam-online.net [16], you'll find it referenced for many Islam related concepts, and some of these article are peer-reviewed article. Cheers! TruthSpreader^Talk 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quranic reasons for terrorism

Quranic reasons for terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Most of this content is already in the Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, about "an Iranian-born American citizen who confessed to intentionally hitting people with a car ...avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide." The creation of a stand-alone article and linking that article to various other Islam-related articles createst undue weight on the motivations/citations of a single individual. In other words, I don't see how this is any different than creating an article titled "Biblical reasons for terror" with Eric Robert Rudolph cited as the principal source; i.e., it's inherently POV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment-I suspect that this article was created to give a more broad look at the reasons Islamic terrorists often give for their, well, terrorism :/. Since it was just created, I suspect Mohammed's comments have been used as a starting point for further expansion. However, I have to admit, i'd rather hear the creator of the page's side first so that my suspicions don't just prove baseless :/. Homestarmy 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vehicle to post a list of verses that has been repeatedly inserted on various pages Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: that an article is poorly cited or POV is usually not an argument for deletion, but rather an argument for expansion. If this article can be expanded and cited to establish notability, then it should be. If it cannot be so cited, then that should have been the argument for deletion, along with some indication of why it can never be better cited. — coelacan talk — 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Though my nomination may not have been clear on that point, the article itself is; it's a list of verses cited by a convicted killer as justifications for his actions. As Tom Harrison noted, this exact list has been posted to other Islam-related articles before. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the lists repeated removal from those articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It does appear to be just that. And the article name is inherently POV. — coelacan talk — 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• No brainer delete. Is this the banned User:DAde rearing his disruptive (putting it politely) head? (→Netscott) 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• strong and speedy delete or rename to stuff cited by lone lunatic and then delete. --Striver 22:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep My reason for its creation was that it allows people to have Quran-based arguments on the justifications of terrorism.--Patchouli 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the Quran needs help in that regard, but it almost encourages terrorism. Might I suggest a different name? --Dennisthe2 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective as Hell. 1) Title assumes that that Quran gives justifications for Terrorism. I suspect a lot of people would disagree. 2) It assumes that the acts of violence implied are 'terrorism' and the perpetrators 'terrorists'. I suspect those parties would see it differently. 'Quranic reasons for resisting Western Oppression' anyone?--Sandy Scott 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. ITAQALLAH 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ITAQALLAH 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. Merge useful, cited, content into article entitled Scriptural justifications for terrorism (Islam) which would be a subset of religious terrorism. Obviously there would be versions for the other religions as well. Despite the offense mainstream adherents of a given religion take at "Satan quoting scripture" so to speak, the rationale extremists give for their extremism is interesting and a valid subject. <<-armon->> 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a re-naming. There should be some article explaining the rationale of militant Islamists.--Patchouli 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK but but just to clarify. A long list of quotes from one guy lacking context isn't what I have in mind as a proper article. I think it needs a lot of work, but as it was afd'ed 9 mins after creation, I'd be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. <<-armon->> 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename. Pick a name. --Dennisthe2 01:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:OR. Qur'an is a primary source. This topic has already been discussed, for example in Jihad article. We don't need another fork view of the same topic based on Original research. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "terrorism" in it self is controversial enough to not be used in a article title of this context. --Striver 12:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: A very POV oriented title. No religion teaches terrorism. --- ALM 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic extremist terrorism

Islamic extremist terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians in an effort to be politically correct. This concept is clearly separate from the real topic it pretends to address, Islamic terrorism. The same thing applies with Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid. KazakhPol 03:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• While some editors might suggest moving the current page to the title Islamic terrorism, there really isnt anything worth salvaging from the current, pov, uncited mess. KazakhPol 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete I wonder these people who claim to be philosophers and intellectuals on wikipedia. Tell me, you people really dont know the hypocrisy of news media? Did you ever hear the term 'terrorism by israel'? How many times you hear the 'christian extremist terrorism' on FOX and CNN. Does one FOX, CBC and CNN comprise all the media of the world. You Americans please come out of this Bubble created by few news channels. There is more to the world than a couple of hypocrite American channels.
• Now people will think why am I criticizing in this way. My point is, there is no such thing called 'islamic terrorism' or 'islamic extremist terrorism' in under the definition which is being provided by wikipedians here. How many countries North Korea or Syria or Iran have ruined??? NONE. How many countries American regime ruined? Dozen. How many people killed by American regime? Millions. Even then there is not even a single day when the channels dont yell the self created term 'islamic terrorism'. So my point is, the same is happening on the wikipedia articles. Muslims just cant defend by correct editing because very very minor percentage of Muslims have access to the internet. Any website goes to number one in the ranke which is used by Americans , that does not comply that it is number one in the world too. Please see the www.msn.com ranking on www.alexa.com [17]. Its number second, but in non-American and non-Eu countries, nobody even thinks to visit that site. So to be fair please give value to the limited number of disagreeing people who come from technologically less developed areas. Please see this and [this refernce before reacting to my post. VirtualEye 12:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep if you want to rename the page, take it to requested moves Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh... except that I just said I dont want to move the page. KazakhPol 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator seems to be making two arguments, that the page is uncited, which is absurd, and that it's POV, which he's made no evident attempt to fix or address first. There's really no valid reason presented to delete this article.--Kchase T 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • About 40% of the article is uncited. And for your information, I have done more to correct Wikipedia's information on terrorism than is required for me to open a debate on this topic, which is none at all. I suggest you take a look at Terrorism in Kazakhstan, Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, JCAM, and HT before making such bold statements. KazakhPol 05:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If 40% is uncited, then add cite tags. Just because an article lacks citations for asserted facts does not mean that it is unverifiable, which then would prompt deletion. In any case, the fact that you've tried to make other articles neutral has no bearing on this article. Deleting for POV concerns comes only after thorough attempts have been made to make the article NPOV. Only irredeemably or inherently POV articles get deleted. The current POV tag was added 24 October and there has been no conversation related to that POV claim on the talk page. In fact, the tagger, User:Farhansher, hasn't posted to the talk page since placing the tag.--Kchase T 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well sourced and POV issues can be addressed. TSO1D 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above and WP:SNOW. <<-armon->> 04:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest you review SNOW. Four votes is not going to get this to end before any conversation has been had. KazakhPol 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you review this. There's also the current talk page as well as four archives of "conversation" about it. In fact, I've renamed it myself. The problem is, you've put the article up for deletion on the basis that you object to it's title. Not a valid reason, so it won't happen. <<-armon->> 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Nominator is not neutral in trying to delete this article. Nomination describes the article as fictitious, which is patently untrue given the amount of cited facts presented. Said article may have some POV issues which can be corrected. The article is on an important subject matter. While the subject matter is sensitive and objectionable to certain parties, Wikipedia is not censored. --Eqdoktor 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Of the sources cited, please provide one example in which the sources refer to "Islamic extremist terrorism." Better yet, please provide one source, anywhere other than Wikipedia, that references "Islamist extremist terrorism" as a concept. Can you? KazakhPol 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, footnote 24 is citing a source discussing the issue. Googling "Islamic extremist terrorism " gets me a few thousand hits (not counting Wikipedia and its derivatives). This story an Islamic extremist supporting terrorism. OTH, if all it is you want is "Islamic extremist terrorism" together, your barking up the wrong tree. What you seem to object to is the words "Islamic", "extremist", "terrorist" put together in describing Islamic terrorism. I suggest a name change for the article as described below. --Eqdoktor 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there Christian extremist terrorism and Islamic extremist terrorism but no Zionist extremist terrorism? Instead, there is Zionist political violence. I see a clear double standard here. Either the Zionist article should be renamed to this convention, or the Christian and Islamic terrorism articles should be renamed to "political violence", i.e. Christian political violence and Islamic political violence. WP:NPOV applies especially to cases such as this. metaspheres 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no such term as "extremist terrorism." They should all be terrorism. That's what people call their acts. KazakhPol 06:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think the article is supposed to be about extremist terrorism but terrorism by Islamic extremists, highlighting the fact that only a minority viewpoint within the religion have engaged in terrorism. If called Islamic terrorism it would suggest the entire religion engages in or supports terrorism. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest a centralized discussion in an attempt to create a consensus for the naming of all three articles. That's what was attempted with the "...apartheid" articles, though I'm not sure how successful it was at achieving consensus.--Kchase T 06:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This kind of thing is always prone to stubbornness, so I agree that it is probably very difficult to reach any consensus, but I believe it's still possible, though we could probably kill two birds with one stone by renaming this right here and now. Though KazakhPol's point is valid, the fact remains that we have to be consistent with NPOV, which would necessitate replacing "terrorism" with "political violence" in the article titles. The reason being that the article does not simply discuss al-Qaeda (which is universally viewed as terrorist except by its own supporters) but other groups as well. I'm not sure why KazahkPol would nominate this article for deletion when he seems only opposed to the article title. Anyway, for what its worth, I say rename to Islamic political violence. Same for the Christian one. metaspheres 06:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think that should be discussed here. Usually renaming discussion happens on the article's talk page. If you need more input, list at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which is also linked above. Forcing mergers sometimes happens at AfD, but there's really no point in forcing a rename, especially with the enormous history of controversy over the name of this article. AfD, with its five day time limit, is too quick and stressful and dirty for a rename of this article, let alone a completely different one. Also look at User_talk:Kchase02#Religion_and_terrorism_pages, as KazakhPol may be starting a centralized discussion on the names of all the articles sometime soon.--Kchase T 06:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • The AfD process is not a vote, but a discussion by which to reach consensus. Often times the result is to merge or rename an article, rather than to delete. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic politics of Khuzestan which resulted in a rename to Politics of Khuzestan. This is as good a place as any to discuss and the issue is clear cut and simple. Either you are in favor of "terrorism" or you are not, and five days is more than enough time to reach such a consensus. If consensus can't be reached within five days, it won't be reached in five weeks or five months. metaspheres 08:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You'd be surprised how many AfD's can't reach consensus in five days and go through relisting, deletion review, mediation, etc. Anyway, it's unusual for a rename to happen at AfD, in part because the forum isn't necessary for that purpose. Just look at the numbers below "move" that you see at User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary/All. Frankly, saying it's as "clear cut and simple" as whether you favor "terrorism" in the title or don't is reducing the issue to a vote. My experience through hundreds of AfD discussions has taught me that a simple vote isn't usually helpful for consensus building.--Kchase T 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Please do not move comments. As I have stated, the AfD process is a discussion, not a vote. metaspheres 09:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • In what earthly respect are you claiming I'm treating it as a vote?--Kchase T 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. No valid reason provided for deletion. I don't see why this nominator thinks that this is a "fictitious concept created by a small faction of Wikipedians". If you don't like the title, move it. If you think it is uncited, tag it with {{fact}}, {{verify}} templates. If it is POV, tag it with {{pov}}. utcursch | talk 07:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a well sourced article covering a sensitive and controversial topic with much skill. This is not a fictitious concept- it simply address the issue of terrorism by Muslim extremists.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable and referenced. //Dirak 12:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Enigma059 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is notable and referenced, it needs to be claened upRaveenS 14:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Islamist terrorism. I've been always supporting this title. It certainly has more political connotations; which what the article is set for. Islamism is not Islam. Extremism is not fanaticism nor it is radicalism. More sources and references to be added. POV can be sorted out by discussions on the talk page. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Islamist terrorism, though politically correct, is not factually correct. Does wikipedia strive to be politically correct or accurate. You can't be both, at least not in this case. All news organizations on television call it Islamic terrorism, Islamic Extremism, Islamic Fascism. Nobody calls it Islamist terrorism. For example, PBS calls is Islamic terrorism. BBC calls it Muslim terrorism. MSNBC calls it Islamic terrorism. The New York Times calls it Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist.--Sefringle 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep, rename metaspheres is right on. These articles should be kept. But there is no justification whatsoever, other than home bias, for naming the "Christian", "Zionist" and "Islamic" forms differently. "Political violence" is probably more appropriate than "terrorism", but the most fundamental thing in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and WP:BIAS is that they be labelled the same. Anything else is hyprocrisy. Akihabara 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment on rename. If these pages are to be renamed I propose the format: "terrorism by X'" or "political violence by X". Otherwise it reads as if one can commit acts of terrorism/political violence in a Christian or Islamic manner. The religion is relevant to the cause the terrorists are attempting to advance, not the acts of terrorism per se. An act of Christian terrorism would be in substance the same as an act of Islamic terrorism, but with a different objective. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re comment Actually that was the point. However, titles like that (by X) are too heavy. I'd support Akihabara suggestion using political violence as we have a guideline (Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism). -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, no move. Articles like this make WP superior to many other info sources, even if they're controversial and under contention. My OED (Concise, 11th Ed.) defines "Islamist" as both n. and adj. but moving pages just for a usage of similar words is trite and disruptive. I also find the grounds for deletion to be FAR from neutral. Better to work on the article to make it concise, NPOV, and well cited than to complain. Deletion would IMHO be akin to the "airplane into building" method of political discourse. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; I wouldn't have a problem with this being renamed Islamic terroism, but there is no logical reason to remove this article. --Mhking 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Terrorism or Political Violence Islamic Political Violence. --Strothra 17:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - It's too long to be merged w/ another article. -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment This page has been renamed several times as consensus has shifted. I suggest we decide here only to delete or not, and decide at requested moves about what to call it this quarter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is cited to multiple independent, reliable, and verifiable sources, along with sources of less quality. It is a function of editing to sort out and remove any nonreliable sources, and to remove any POV pushing. The topic is clearly of considerable importance. Edison 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keeep The topic is scholarly and has overwhelming evidence.--Patchouli 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & rename. Change it to Islamic terrorism.--71.107.224.142 21:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rename it if you want but there's no way it should be deleted. --BillyTFried 22:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Religious motivated terrorism (islam) Alf photoman 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge with religious violence and political violence per my discussion on the talk page (Who are these people that just randomly came into this AFD? How come they didn't look at the talk page first?) --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Islamic extremist terrorism is a major contribution to world affairs in the modern world. It diserves an article.--Sefringle 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as per svest. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hate text. Grace Note 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per utcursh and sefringle. Rename to Islamic terrorism, use less euphemistic titles for similar articles as per nom. Arrow740 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Definitely a valid topic. The politically correct at work again. We cannot simply turn a blind eye to what's happenning in the world. What hate text? The real hate is in the minds of those terrorists, there is no need to be nitpicking over this. Could be renamed to "Islamist terrorism" however. "Islamic terrorism" might not be right, however, the word "Islamist" has been used generally to refer to the earthly politics motivated by Islam. In any case, even if the content was merged with another article, the text "Islamic terrorism" deserves its own article, at least to refer to the concept and notion as referred by many in the world media. Baristarim 13:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, to reply to what someone said above about "western oriented blah blah". I am Turkish and I feel that it definitely deserves to be there and I never watch FOX News. I generally watch French, Turkish and American TV, and it is used quite often. My country has also suffered from Islamist terrorism, and it is definitely not Orientalistic to say that. I am an atheist, however.. Baristarim 14:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Article is an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic mess that lumps in a vast array of unrelated conflicts and events, most of which are essentially political and territorial in nature. The criteria for inclusion in the article seems to be "anything violent involving a Muslim and/or Arab". --Lee Hunter 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The above also applies to the The Crusades, but with Christians (and over several hundred years ago); and yet there is no dispute over the existence of the Crusades page. I believe maintainability is not an issue as it can be controlled with present Wikipedia policies, the same with the "unencyclopedic" concern. --Eqdoktor 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThe crusades deals with a specific historical event (actually a series of events) which is very well defined. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is whatever any editor wants to make it of it no matter how ludicrous including at various times, believe it or not, the Barbary Pirates and the PFLP (Marxist-Leninist organization). Recently there's been an endless revert war over whether to include an enormous chunk of quoted material from a US university student (reputedly a heavy stoner) who went nuts and injured some people with his car. Since the guy claims to be a Muslim and he claims that God told him to do it, therefore it's "Islamic extremist terrorism". I argued against it till I was blue in the face and finally gave up in disgust. There is NO need for this article. It's just a place for people to vent their paranoid fantasies about Islam. --Lee Hunter 15:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid fantasies??? Well, My city was blasted in the middle four times by a bunch of Islamist terrorists, and there was nothing paranoid about that monsieur. So cut down on the politically correct please. They refer to themselves as jihadists, most of the world refers to themselves as such. It is pretty arrogant to say "oh, but they are not real muslims, a "real" muslim wouldn't do that!" That's arrogant and illogical. In that case we will never be able to use adjectives anymore in any language "oh, he is not fat, he is just overweight!" Whatever.. Islamic/Islamist terrorism exists, so just get used to it. Baristarim 19:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete According to VirtualEye and KazakhPol above. Mak82hyd 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Valid concept, well researched and documented. --Gabi S. 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is an excellent well researched article with tonnes of useful information. I'm surprised it was nominated for deletion. --Matt57 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry KazakhPol, this will end up as a keep as well. --Matt57 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article could use some work but there's no question that the subject is encyclopedic. GabrielF 06:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are two related articles: Militant Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism. Because there is not much overlap between the two, I think they should remain. However, it could be better to merge them into the first one (which should be heavily edited anyway). --Gabi S. 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Is Al Qaeda Islamic? Are they terrorists? Is 60% of world terrorism committed by Islamic groups? When Muslims stop committing the majority terrorist acts, there will no longer be a need for this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jboyler (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Allaahuakbar.net

Allaahuakbar.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

According to Alexa, this website's ranking is only 349,951. Therefore this website is not notable at all and hence does not comply with WP:WEB. --Matt57 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning towards delete. i did a quick, incomplete search and i did find some decent places discussing this website [18], [19] but i would have to search further to see if i can find anything else. this i'll do at a later time. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links but two links on Google that link to it doesnt say anything. Like I said its ranking is 300,000+ and it doesnt meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. This is what we have to go by - does it meet WP:WEB? Please apply these policies to this article and you'll find that your weak delete would probably turn into a strong one. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB - crz crztalk 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination--Sefringle 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm ' The site is owned by " India's Ansar us-Sunnah Library and Research Center". What is that? It is not a private person... if the organization is notable, then we might have a case for inclusion, considering Itaqallah's comments. --Striver 03:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt look like the organization is notable. The question you should consider is: Does it satisfy WP:WEB? That is what we should go by because this is an article on a website. --Matt57 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Itaqallah's reference not fullfill "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."? --Striver 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesnt. Did you check the links? They're simply making references to the site's information. The above you quoted says "has been the subject". Allaahuakbar.net has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". When I make a reference link to a website, that is trivial as compared to publishing work and having that website as a subject of that work. If you're going to bring two articles that make a link to a website and say its notable - that for example can apply to virtually any random XYZ Geocities website as well. --Matt57 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the content of the first: "Orthodox Sunni Muslim organizations regard MSTA, NOI and FP as heretical cults. India's Ansar us- Sunnah Library and Research Center refers to NOI as the Nation of Kufr (unbelievers) for its emphasis on Black nationalism and identity and what it describes as a blend of false Muslim and Christian beliefs. The group's website places NOI alongside Shiites, which they describe as rafidah (rejectors), and other groups they consider heretics such as Sufis, Druze and Amhadis in a section warning Muslims to guard their faith (http://www.allaahuakbar.net).". Is that a "simple link"? --Striver 06:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not, I agree. But thats just one link. WP:WEB says "Multiple" and in addition it also says "non-trivial". Going by what BhaiSaab said for Faithfreedom, I'll say that in this case this mention is trivial. If you see the policy, it defines what trivial is and this is true in this case in my opinion. There are more popular Islamic websites than this, dont worry. This one is definitely non-notable. What you could do is find which pro-Islam sites are notable and make articles on those. --Matt57 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:WEB. FrummerThanThou 06:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom --Mhking 16:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I should add that the ranking is not the only thing that makes this website not notable. Its simply its failure to satisfy WP:WEB and thats the main criteria that should be used. --Matt57 02:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web) criteria ... no external links that satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources ... links to the subject's website and an "under construction" domain do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards. —Dennette 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I know this is going to be a controversial deletion so I decided to take this to AfD directly instead of prodding it. Basically, before you do anything, I want you to discard all of your biases and prior knowledge of this topic and look at it completely objectively. If you can't do that, I don't think you should make any judgment on this AfD because you probably have some kind of vested interest in the topic or something which would interfere with your neutrality. Now, looking at this monster of an article, all I see is original research. There are zero references in the entire article except when it quotes primary sources (being the Bible and Qur'an itself). That in itself is okay sometimes, but throughout the article, large sections of both works are quoted and it leaves the reader to draw conclusions, sort of like saying "Here's two passages. They have similarities." and just leaving it at that. Finally, the Bible and Qur'an are similar. So what? The Lion King and Hamlet are similar too but they don't have an article that just puts two sections of them side-by-side verbatim without even explaining why they're similar (a side note, is it copyvio to have such large blocks of Biblical and Qur'anic text in an article?). That is something that should be discussed in their individual articles, if it's notable enough at all (and a side note, isn't it obvious enough that the Bible and Qur'an would have similarities even without an article on it?). Axem Titanium 20:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• no vote yet Good points. The question is: Is the article verifiaBLE. And another interesting question: Would it be ok with OR in SOME cases? Or in other words, is it OR if the facts are obviously self-evident and non-controversial? Im sure everybody agrees that this is a more ... uh.... "notable"? ... uh... topic than comparing The Lion King with Hamlet. --Striver 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR unless article can be rewritten with proper sourcing, in which case, stubify and restart This is a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia, but at the moment, the article appears to be pure original research. I don't see any copyvio issues here however. Bwithh 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete- i agree there is no copyvio, but I do not agree that this is a viable topic for an article. The question posed by Striver is a telling one - "is OR ok in some cases?" I think the answer is no, even when its self-evident stuff. OR is OR, and the fact that something is true does not make it automatically valid as a WP article.--Dmz5 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

well, to clarify my comment, I mean that this is a reasonable article if there is no original research (including "self-evident" stuff) i.e. rely on authoritative secondary sources only instead. A quick glance at google books suggests that there are books out there making this kind of comparison. How reliable these sources are will take further investigation Bwithh 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The entire article consists solely of original research. Unless it can be backed up by several scholarly sources on the topic it must go. --The Way 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Aside from the title, this article is redundant with Islamic view of the Bible. Delete this version, point links/redirects to Islamic view of the Bible, and leave this name (or a stub) available in case someone wants to make a sourced article that meets the title. BCoates 11:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think large chunk of text from Qur'an and Torah should be removed and commentary from secondary reliable sources should be included. This can be done by first trimming the whole article by removing all primary sources. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article can be salvaged. In words case, stubify. --Striver 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. This is one of the instances where the only reference can be both holy books and some obscure compared religion books. Doubt anythyng useful can be found on the web to reference it. Somebody will have to move his bulk to a good library. Alf photoman 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Anomo 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite it FirefoxMan 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• very strong keep. This is a compilation and not OR--but it is a very useful compilation. I can not understand why scholarly sources are wanted by The Way: the sources are the paraphrased texts. The reader is supposed to judge for himself. Do we need a scholarly work to tell us what part of the Bible discusses Moses?

There are some things to be improved: the title is not a good choice--this is a comparison of some events and people in the Koran with the OT and NT. It -- fortunately -- is not about the similarities of their ethical or religious content, or their style, or their manner of composition, or their historical influence. It -- fortunately -- does not attempt to judge which story is more likely to be historical, or to cite sources who might give their opinions on that.

The paraphrases are too long, as are the sections done by quotation. It would be better to make compact accounts, with appropriate parts as quotations in each of the sections--and to make each parallel a main section. this would be much more readable. And perhaps it is not a good idea to include the entire Gospels as one paraphrase. I'd advise doing just the OT here, and do a separate article for the Gospels. DGG 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly context is needed. Obviously these texts were not originally written in modern English. Plus, Wikipedia is not a religious text archive (though Wikiquote or WIkisource might be used for this). Also see my comments below Bwithh 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • some comments This discussion is notable for the most drastic misunderstanding of copyright yet seen in WP. Neither the Bible nor the Koran are copyright. Specific translations may be, but most of this is paraphrase, and citing a few verses from even a recent translation is just about the clearest example of fair use I can imagine. (though if a particular translation is used, it should be identified)

I do not see this as biased to an Islamic view. The only reason why someone would think so is the relative unfamiliarity of the Koran when read by someone who knows the Bible thoroughly. I hope it does not mean that the editor thinks that any mention of a non Judeochristian view is necessarily bias. Even if we for some reason judge by length, the Koranic passages are usually shorter. DGG 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it is known that the Qur'an cites passages of the old testament Rough 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Highly useful for researchers.--Patchouli 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment But without sourcing and context, this is not of much use to researchers. The article does not even indicate which versions of the Koran and the Bible are used. There are substantial differences and debates over interpretation and translation of these texts. As it is, the article seems to suggest with its quotations that the English language versions of the Koran and Bible are stable and uncontroversial. But the meaning of these texts is a matter of dispute even for those fluent in the relevant strains of Arabic and Hebrew/Greek. Proper referencing and scholarly context is needed. Bwithh 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Sourcing is possible; has redeeming value. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 10:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Others

[edit] Judaism

[edit] Demographic warfare

Demographic warfare (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The term is a neologism originated in somebody's thesis, which has not been accepted by academia. Essentially, the article takes facts (population figures and trends) and adds pop-sociological theories. Information is best treated elsewhere, and there's nothing here worth merging. Delete. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SOAP. Article seems to be a soapbox for white supremacist propaganda regarding a race war in the United States together with completely unsourced and unsubstantiated claims of similar phenomena in other parts of the world, veiled in a thin academic guise. --Shirahadasha 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if article can be expanded with more sources. It seems the term does have some usage outside of the dissertation: Google Book Search yields hits [20] for the exact term in a bunch of history/political books, while there are also 1,380 web Google hits for the term outside of Wikipedia [21]. --Howrealisreal 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it seems a reasonable version of Revenge of the cradle somewhat related to population explosion and the converse of Demographic transition (which may also "breed" warfare). Fits in with lots of other academic jargon that abounds. No big deal. IZAK 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Shirahadasha. WP:SOAP. Collecting a series of quotes and snippets together doesn't produce an encyclopedic topic. Absent very thorough sourcing the suspicion of WP:OR is very strong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MetsFan76 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OR; 20 or so citations of a 1970 book stating something fairly obvious isnt enough for a term to be declared encyclopaedic. Hornplease 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep if additional sources can be found that meet WP:RS per Howrealisreal. Dragomiloff 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, is baloney. FrummerThanThou 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete really crufty. There's no question that we could have an article about Demographics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or something, but it shouldn't be folded into Demographic warfare. The title implies that one group is purposefully outbreeding the other for political purposes, which seems pretty ridiculous. There's nothing in the article which cites demographic issues in a particular conflict to this general concept of demographic warfare. The Mexican/US thing is totally OR.GabrielF 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Partially based on unreliable research, and the partially original research. Mus Musculus 16:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignatz Lichtenstein

Ignatz Lichtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A prior AfD was overturned at deletion review due to the emergence of new sources (please review DRV discussion for a listing of the sources), so it is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sources that have been provided are perfectly in line with WP:V. No reason to delete. metaspheres 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because this is a silly reincarnation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Lichtensteinx2. What a waste of time that we have to go through this Wikipedia:Hoax. IZAK 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Izak, please note that among the many reliable sources now discovered is the 1929 Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia, and as such, it is (I hope) no longer possible for you to dismiss all the reliable sources as an elaborate conspiracy of Christian prosletysers. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Kendrick7: Hungarian goulash is probably more authentic. People are missing the point entirely. There was and is absolutely nothing notable about Ignatz/Isaac either as a Jew or as a Christian. Note: Real rabbis with more achievements get deleted on Wikipedia simply because they are not notable, even if they have given speeches that were published. That Ignatz/Isaac allegedly wrote a few pamphlets and is quoted in missionary works and what the Messianic Jews are doing with him is an outright hoax because there is neither any meaning nor any impact of the tale about this totally insignificant "rabbi" from a Hungarian village having done what he allegedly did. Sure, those out to missionize the Jews may have thought they "struck gold" by grasping at this pathetic straw just as today's mssionaries think they have uncovered some great "hero" here, worthy of a Wikipedia piece, when all they are holding onto is fools gold - a true hoax. IZAK 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Please provide a link to the discussion of the new sources. --Dweller 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ah. Found it. Strong Keep. --Dweller 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) vote strengthened Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion at Deletion review Catchpole 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion at Deletion review - crz crztalk 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per discussion at Deletion review. Jamie Guinn 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Discussion at deletion review. However, I'd like to make it very clear that only the sources agreed to be reliable based on that discussion should be used in the article. JoshuaZ 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the guy was nuts, not a WP:rule but just my 2c, and per IZAK. FrummerThanThou 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - if we deleted bios simply because the people they deal with were nuts, we'd have a lot fewer articles here. His views may have been distasteful to many, and he may have been a bit loopy, but not nearly as distasteful or loopy as others I could mention who have large articles (I won't mention some of them for fear of invoking Godwin's Law...) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Brandt?? **GASP!** - crz crztalk 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable person who created a controversial Judaic cult Alf photoman 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't matter that he was nuts, FrummerThanThou, so was David Koresh. MetsFan76 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Even if he's a hoax, he's a notable hoax, per Little Mikey. Further, I think it's difficult to argue Lichtenstein's non notable if he's cited as a notable founding father by today's Messianic Jews. Wikipedia comfortably accommodates many fictional characters of note... not to mention all the Biblical characters than non believers also consider to be fictional. The hoax issue is therefore a non starter. Notability is the key and if he's cited in key documentation used today by Messianic Jews I'd argue he's clearly notable. Sorry IZAK. I'm gritting my teeth and strengthening my keep vote above. --Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per DRV and prior AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep passes most WP:BIO tests, and is WP:V'd by numerous WP:RS's. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the reasons I gave before.--Meshulam 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete contemporary authors with more publications have been deleted as non-notable. Publishing stuff doesn't make you notable. We need a source that will attest to his historical importance, but reading through the deletion review I don't see any such source. We are not here to conduct historical research or to resurrect long-forgotten historical figures. We can only write articles about people others think are important. GabrielF 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per first AfD and deletion review, plenty of meat for an article here. The popularity of shrubberies among delete opinions as high as ever: what would "a source that will attest to his historical importance" be? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because he meets WP:BIO. We are an encyclopedia that is not paper. As such, we can keep all topics that other encyclopedias have chosen to cover. Among the reliable sources about him that were mentioned in the prior AFD and the Deletion Review is the 1929 Zsido Lexikon, a Jewish Encyclopedia written in Hungarian. Other reliable sources about him exist, so he meets WP:BIO, the relevant standard. As an encyclopedia, it is arguably more important to cover historical figures than contemporary figures - and certainly articles on them are less often subject to spam concerns, so there are reasons for deleting contemporary figures that don't apply to historical figures. GRBerry 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

Examination of Holocaust denial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Sorry, but I can only see this as a soapbox. Holocaust denial is a vile thing, but we are not here to rebut it, only to report that it exists and is rejected by anybody with an ethical bone in their body. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge any useful info into Holocaust Denial. TSO1D 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Holocaust denial covers the topic perfectly well. An article on Examination of Holocaust denial can serve no purpose but as a focus for OR and POV pushing.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I know that I am going to lose this one, but I really feel that any article which provides sensible arguments against Holocaust denial, as this one does, should be retained. As one who has stood on the ground at Auschwitz-Birkenau, I may be biased; but if so, it is a bias I am proud of.--Anthony.bradbury 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was first expanded from the original Holocaust Denial article because the article itself was focusing too much on the arguments against denial, and not on the aspect of holocaust denial itself (its history, repercussions, etc.). It has existed on Wikipedia for over two years, and since that time its POV has not seriously challenged until now, with this AfD. As the edit history of the article itself shows, nearly all of the disputes involving the articles POV have been from anonymous (or short-lived) users who popped up to declare the article biased -- because it supposedly didn't present detailed equal time "questioning the Holocaust." The issue here is that this article is inherently biased against Holocaust deniers -- which is as it should be. Why? Not because of POV or my own or anyone's despising of Holocaust deniers (deserved or not); rather, because Holocaust denial is itself a hate-spawned, primarily anti-Semitic belief based on wild conspiracy theories. This is not a statement of bias, but rather a statement of fact -- one that has been proven again and again over the years. It is NPOV to state this, because it is a proven fact, backed up by considerable arguments against denial that vastly outweigh the feeble arguments presented by deniers. Consequently, I believe the article is NPOV, because debunking of Holocaust denial as a lunatic fringe belief is a historical fact. --Modemac 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the article history as illuminated by Modemac. While I can see how this article could be mischaracterized as a soapbox, its inclusion is essential in order to maintain neutral coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though possibly re-title - Criticism of Holocaust Denial (as suggested elsewhere) sounds good to me. The content definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) vote edited Argyriou (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a useful and interesting article and looks well on its way to being well referenced. The holocaust denial article focuses on the movement, personalities involved and the history, this article is about the claims made by the movement and the evidence rebutting them. Seems a significant enough movement that one article isn't enough to cover it. NPOV is good but does not mean giving equal time to fringe theories while leaving them unrebutted. Dragomiloff 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Holocaust denial. Though remnants of the holocaust are touching, Wikipedia is not a place to posit evidence for and against this subject. Remember to stay neutral. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename, rewrite to something else, because as it stands "Examination of" makes it original research and essay. Criticisms of Holocaust denial or something like that, perhaps? It is also inherently POV, which must be changed to be an encyclopedia article. It needs to be rewritten such that it includes the "evidence" of the deniers, or at least links to it on the Holocaust denial page, rather than a single statement followed by paragraphs refuting it. Koweja 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Too large to merge with Holocaust Denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, extensively edit, and rename to 'Criticisms of Holocast denial' or similar -Toptomcat 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - examination insinuates OR. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is Original Research and POV. The nature of this article wishes to argue something, and is mostly argument with some sparse quotes. According to WP:OR, "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is Original Research and is not encyclopedic, thus must be removed. So must POV. Even if there is POV on other related cites, that doesnt justify creating more POV to balance it out. Rather, introduce the relevant information in the relevant objective article and change the prose so that it reflects a neutral view point that wishes to present all the facts. Xlegiofalco 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep with indifference to renaming. Although a decision for or against merging here wouldn't be binding, I'll opine that merging doesn't seem viable due to the length of the two articles. I read the nomination as being that the article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Maybe... However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which gives us the opportunity to have more depth of coverage on important topics, not just more topics of marginal importance. This much content is not too much in my opinion. (And I note that to the best of my knowledge we don't have any community standards for what constitutes "too much information" on a topic of agreed importance.) I also don't see the original research concern as being real; my read of the article is that the refutations are generally cited to a prior source that used them the same way, which makes the analysis not original. Could more be quoted and cited - sure, but the article wouldn't need to change significantly. GRBerry 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP. This article is better written than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and contains vast amounts of valuable information. While it doesn't make use of proper Wikipedia inline citations, that is easily remedied. I noticed that it uses Lipstadt's book on Holocaust denial as a reference, a book that I happen to own. If the consensus is to keep, I will gladly spend a few days properly wikifying the article. As to the claims above of WP:OR, I must respectfully disagree. I know a lot about this subject, and everything I read in this article I have also heard or read elsewhere. In closing, I would like to add that Holocaust denial is a longstanding concern of mine. I think it is vitally important for this project to provide articles that debunk this movement. Jeffpw 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Modemac. metaspheres 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Too large to merge. Too good to delete. Rename to Criticisms of....Hornplease 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. Fascinating and well-written. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete Tuohirulla puhu 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Care to offer a reason for your opinion? GRBerry 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• MERGE and DELETE - Very well written and researched. Fascinating! However, the article does have quite a bit of overlap with the Holocaust denial article and covers most of the same issues. As the Holocaust denial article is most likely the more commonly read of the two it would be a shame for readers to miss the material contained in this one. Therefore I recommend merging it with the Holocaust denial article and then deleting it.KarlXII 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• As per various above comments, keep and retitle. I like Criticisms of Holocaust denial, personally. Natalie 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge Do NOT redirect! FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article appears to be appropriately written. Possibly merge based on some of the comments above. I note in particular Jeffpw's offer to improve the article if it is maintained. Orderinchaos78 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. The article is sound, although it is in desperate need of inline references to clearly demonstrate that it is not OR, e.g. that it is a summation of arguments made in other contexts to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers. To that end, it should also be renamed. Examination of Holocause denial suggests that this is an article that will examine and refute certain claims; it would be more neutral to call it Criticisms or Refutations instead. - Eron ^Talk 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. In light of recent comments I am changing my opinion to one of keep and supporting a rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial. But it should be stressed that the article needs considerable work to reference the content and avoid POV and OR criticism. Contrary to what has been said above, Wikipedia should not set out to rebut notable theories, however objectionable- that sets editors up as critics, something to be avoided. However I accept criticisms of Holocaust denial are widespread and well founded and do deserve to be covered neutrally by Wikipedia. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a somewhat regular contributor to the article in question (and having already voted above), I'll state that I fully accept the statements that the article does need more revision to be truly NPOV, and I will not object to or impede any genuine efforts to make it more NPOV. --Modemac 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename as "Criticisms of...." Too much useful content to merge. Doc Tropics 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP - if you get rid of this article, you'll have to get rid of Single bullet theory, and basically every other article that tries to explain or examine something that happened in history. And what is and is not encyclopedic is always up for debate because Wikipedia is not paper. Just because the word 'encyclopedia' was defined over a century ago does not mean the definition must stick today. The pursuit of knowldege and clarity is our main goal. This article certainly helps in the clarity department.Mk623SC20K 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Criticism of holocaust denial or edit Holocaust denial down to a reasonable length and incorporate arguments for and against, or edit down further and incorporate in Holocaust, which is where it belongs. Strong feelings have created verbose sprawling and not very encyclopedic articles. The reference style is poor; convert to inline references linked to a reference section. Edison 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edison, the Holocaust article is already 166 KB, and Holocaust denial is 67 KB. To merge the three together would be an impossible task, without sacrificing important content. It has already been agreed that the referencing needs work; I have said earlier I am happy to undertake the referencing as a project if this article is kept. It seems logical and important to me that this article remains distinct from the denial article, since they, though related, are on decidedly different facets of the subject. To make an analogy, the articles on Halloween, Halloween 2 and Halloween 3 are all featured articles, yet some people could easily say to save space they should be merged into one article about the series. This subject is at least as deserving of bandwidth as a series of articles about teen slasher flicks.

• Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial or similar to make the focus of the article clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and de-tag POV. Of course it will be POV - the issue of Holocaust denial is one-sided, and so is refuting it. I don't mean to sound like a Holocaust denier, but one cannot deny the facts either. AgentFade2Black 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - both the article and the issue too large for a merge. Also, I don't find "Examination" to be POV, but if there is a consensus that "Criticism" is less so, so be it. BTW, POV is not a valid reason for AFD and I hope no one is advocating a complete removal. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Seeing as there's the whole Iranian International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, maybe if they see it, they'll come to their senses. And, it's a really important topic. I mean like, yeah. Gaterion 01:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki if at all possible, probably to Wikibooks, with a link from Holocaust denial. The article is valuable, but not encyclopedic. If there's no place for it in Wikibooks, reluctant Keep. Haikupoet 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - It would be ideal to have all the information in one article but there's just so much of it and the Holocaust denial article is already 67 kilobytes long.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lairor (talk • contribs).
• Rename to Proof of the Holocaust or Criticism of Holocaust denial, perhaps?--Greasysteve13 03:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial per above. JChap2007 03:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep with some name. Important subject. Hmains 04:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial - the current title is POV; because the other Holocaust pages are so large already this makes sense to be a separate page. Perel 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think there's too much to be merged back into Holocaust denial. Some of the material is duplicated there. I generally don't like articles with titles like "Allegations of..." or "Criticism of..." even when perfectly written the title doesn't seem NPOV. Calling an article an "Examination of..." something sounds like OR. If we have to rename it I would suggest Methodology of Holocaust denial or even Holocaust denial (methodology)GabrielF 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Extensive information and sufficient for its own article. CuriousGiselle 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Aryeh Friedman

Moshe Aryeh Friedman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Clearly WP:Vanity and WP:NN IZAK 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not vanity but fails WP:BIO anyway. MER-C 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And WP:NOT. IZAK 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? MER-C 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For example: Wikipedia is not a soapbox - this guy and the folks who posted this are trying to do a little PR for this totally unkown non-entity. IZAK 13:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Remember WP:AGF. MER-C 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He's a notable nutcase.
• Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. Geoffrey Pruitt 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not sufficiently notable, fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Rabbi Friedman is a crackpot lunatic whose participation in the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust only serves to aid and abet Anti-Semites who truly believe that The Holocaust never occurred. Friedman has received extensive press coverage over the years from publications worldwide, especially given that newspapers lap up the antics of an "Ultra-Orthodox" Rabbi who seems to team up with the most virulent racists he can find. His participation in the recent Iranian hatefest has been picked up by over 1,200 news reports. As such, claims of non-notability are extremely hard to justify, despite the individual's odious actions. Alansohn 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's not the first time he is in the news. I hear his name quite often. Personally I understand and am neutral regarding his actions. There is something to be said for it, and something to be said against it. If he decides to go, I won't be the one to stop him.

--169.132.18.248 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The preceding vote was by a suspected sock-puppet of a banned user, Daniel575. Yossiea 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The 'The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society ' is an international organzition. Moshe Friedman is the head of that organization in Austria and he was invited to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. He is definatly notable. Jidan 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How is this WP:Vanity? He clearly plays a significant role in controversial organization and the article is far from self-promoting. Geoff NoNick 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Definitely notable (as per above.)
  It is a borderline case for WP:Vanity. However, its main problem is a fishy adherence to WP:NPOV; but that can, and should be fixed by us, the editors. The article isn't written very well, and I may rewrite it once this debate is over (unless, of course, someone more knowledgable wants to do so.)
  - Dave314159 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Disgusting but meets WP:BIO - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I am an ultra-Orthodox Jew and an anti-Zionist. That is an extremely small community in itself, maybe numbering into hundreds of thousands of people. I haven't heard of this guy before. This man is an individual with no influence and no following. There may be 50 people at most who acknowledge his little organization. 75.3.230.167 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be easier to believe this statement if this weren't the user's first and only edit.--Dmz5 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, he is right. I don't know Rabbi Friedman or any of his followers personally, but they are indeed a very small group. 50 is probably a realistic estimate. FYI, I'm (also) a Haredi anti-Zionist and NK sympathizer. --169.132.18.248 10:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Notability is not subjective (unfortunately). --Howrealisreal 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Doesn't look like a vanity page, and probably notable enough. Better to improve this than to delete it. JLeander 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a current event, with a person whose name has been cited numerous times relating to this event. There is a picture of him shaking hands with the president of Iran (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/story.rabbi.ap.jpg) in the related article on CNN.com today (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/index.html) --Gdwessel 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia records notable individuals though does not necessarily endorses their views. ekantiK ^talk 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. ccscott 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Alansohn. His lunacy is notable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep also per Alansohn. He may not be that notable to the majority (i didn't even know there was such a thing as a Jewish Holocaust denier), but he's notable enough. Mk623SC20K 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep very notable rabbi. KazakhPol 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I was disappointed just a few days ago when I tried to find information regarding this nut after I saw a picture of him, in full rabbi regalia, shaking hands with a smiling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I looked to Wikipedia as always and could not find him. I was happy to see this rectified when I searched for him today! He may not be well known, but he is the first name that anyone has ever put to someone who is altogether Jewish, a holocaust denier, and a supporter of Hamas in the struggle against the state of Israel. That alone makes this rather strange dude notable. Moreover, the page is neutral in tone and factual in content -- this is not vanity. 68.218.8.145 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How is this vanity? Regardless of his views, he is still notable. I think sometimes too much personal opinion affects the voting. MetsFan76 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's better that people know that there are wacko's out there, rather than trying to hide the fact. Bunthorne 21:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article deserves to exist, this guy has quite a following and some people might want to learn about him and his views. BTW disagreeing with the Zionist regime does not make you a "wacko". Not every Jewish person has to support Israel.
• Keep, precisely because he is a "wacko" we need an article about him, with a picture. This man is doing a very good job of making neturei karta like total fools, regardless of whether they have a case or not. The article should be worked on. FrummerThanThou 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep He's notable nutcase. It does need to tone down the WP:POV though. SkierRMH,02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per other keep vote rationale. __earth ^(Talk) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The guy gets literally 91 google hits of which 24 are unique [22] and only four hits at google news [23] Being the token Jew at a holocaust denial conference does not make you notable. Anything interesting about him can be covered on the article on the conference. GabrielF 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• obvious keep --Striver 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if only because he's relevant to Iran's Holocaust conference. P4k 10:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been included in User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. --Striver 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO, fails 100 year test (and probably a similar 1 year test), google test and will never be more than a stub. Just because a person meets with a head of state or goes to a conference doesn't make them notable. --Dual Freq 12:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Some people read the news and ask "who is this guy?" so they want wikipedia to tell them. The problem is that this guy is a nobody (notability-wise) and there is no reason to have an article about him. I think not having an article about him tells the user all he really wants to know ("who is this guy?" - "Oh, just some nobody who doesn't even have a wikipedia article"). We don't change the notability rules just because there are a few searches about him for a few days. Part of our notability rules is to ask "will anyone care about this person in another 100 years?". I don't think anyone will care in another 100 days! Jon513 12:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the man is actually quite notable, I keep seeing him in the news and such. While there may not be many Jewish people who like this man (obviously) this should be no reason to just delete this article. Feer 12:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep not vanity, & if it were it could be re-written anyway. his involvement in such a high-profile event is n in itself. obviously meets WP:BIO now with the attention this little 'stunt' got them, if not before. also the fact that nk (& to some extent satmarer etc.) are so misrepresented is a reason for us attempting to provide accurate information. "totally unkown non-entity" is not correct (wp has a reasonably well sourced article, they do get some press coverage etc.). no-one is claiming their views are commonly held. he could also be notable as it is ussualy assumed nk are 'based' in jerusalem & ny. also needs a lot of work, undue weight, attempts at clarification etc. & re the accustions, please, they are also at the confrence to combat denial, they certainly believe the shoah occured  ⇒ bsnowball  13:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this article should never have been nominated for deletion. Notable person, who is in the public eye at the momment. 67.76.183.192 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, can't understand why he was nominated Rough 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepHe's clearly notable. I wanted to know who he was and I hit the link to find outMeb53 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, the man is indeed crackpot lunatic, and his views about the holocaust are some of the most extreme ever held by a Jewish person, but the many media references to him (especially for the recent conference in Tehran) would render it non-NPOV if he did not have a page in Wikipedia.

If there is self-promotion in this article, then these particular segments should be deleted. Jimmy1988 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable. It is simply unfair to judge whether he is crazy or not simply because you do not share his views. He is the leader of a small but notable organization.Hayadel 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:Notability. A Google News Search only yields 4 hits. Since when do we grant articles with such little notability. Morton devonshire 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Subject appears notable, with five mentions in non-trivial news articles. I believe he was at the conference in Iran this week, so there will probably be more news coming. Does not appear to be a vanity article. The article is sourced, and appears to be neutral. Don't see any real good reason to delete. Crockspot 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Halakha

Strong delete, Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling, all Halacha books by and for conservaive Jews cite traditional Halacha sources. FrummerThanThou 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Halakha. No opinion on that yet. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious merge to Halakha - crz crztalk 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Crz. Unsure on spelling though. Just H 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – from what I understand, Conservative Judaism does follow its own "halakha," which is partially derived from Orthodox halakha, but is definitely separate. --Eliyak T·C 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So let's make it a section in Ortho halakha. (As far as I understand, it's essentially the same, anyway) - crz crztalk 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Conservative view of Halakha or something like that. I think the topic deserves its own article, but nom is correct (at least in theory - in practice is another story...) that they do not have their own fundamentally different halakhic corpus. --DLand^TALK 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and/or rename - too large to merge.--Sandy Scott 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This should not be in an RfD. There isn't even a claim that the material doesn't meet the usual criteria of WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. The reason given for deletion -- that Conservative Jews do not have an approach to Halakha distinct from Orthodoxy -- represents a POV and is simply not a valid AfD criterion since it simply doesn't address the question of whether the content is encyclopedic (many reliable sources think the two don't approach things identically, but that's a separate issue.) The only question is where this content should be -- as a stand-alone or as part of another article, such as Conservative Judaism, Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or Halakha. This question should be addressed in an AfM discussion, not an AfD. Finally, the Conservative movement made a very controversial decision last week about the issue of homosexuality. This article is the only place in Wikipedia that contains a detailed discussion of that decision. The AfD process should not be used to eliminate valid information about controversial (and notable) topics. Deletion is completely inappropriate. Speedy Keep. --Shirahadasha 22:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:POVFORK is a fine, if infrequently invoked, reason for deletion. You can't blame Frummer for not properly referring to it - he's a relative n00b - hence my insightful commentary immediately below the nom. Oppose speedy keep. - crz crztalk 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree that this is a genuine POV fork, any more than Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are POV forks of Judaism. They are separate denominations with separate decision-making bodies making different decisions based on different philosphies. They are legitimate distinct subjects. If we're not going to get rid of all the distinct Conservative Judaism articles -- Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, etc. -- why single this one out? It may be useful to merge for pragmatic reasons, but disagree that there is a need to on policy grounds. --Shirahadasha 02:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Good. You oppose the nomination. That's fine. But that's not grounds for a Speedy Keep - crz crztalk 02:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly, and by the way these decision-making bodies don't happen to have an article of their own? They would qualify for an extra speedy delete. They have no such body, and are entirely dependant on Orthodox Jewish halachic decision-making bodies and rabbis for their ruling, when they seek one, which is not often since Halacha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism. FrummerThanThou 08:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment The nominator has clarified that the AfD nomination is based, not on a POV fork, but on a personal religious disagreement witht the subject of the article. The nominator wants this article deleted because he believes that "Halakha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism," and has gone so far as to clarify that he believes that articles on "decision-making bodies", such as the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, also "qualify for an extra speedy delete", not because they fail to meet WP:N, WP:V, or other legitimate Wikipedia policy criteria, but because the nominator personally disagrees with them on religious grounds. This is not a proper basis for invoking the AfD process. The integrity of the process should be preserved. If someone has a legitimate basis for an AfD, let that person nominate and provide a legitimate ground. --Shirahadasha 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Depends. It depends on what is on the Halakha page. On the one hand, it is a POV fork and violation of policy if the resulting Halakha page had only, or predominantly, the Orthodox POV and not all halakhic POVs represented equally and fairly. On the other hand, if the Halakha page described Halakha and fairly summarized Conservative, Orthodox, and any other points of view (with pointers to specific articles for more detail), then there certainly is enough material about Conservative Halakha to merit its own page, like Conservative Judaism and Conservative Responsa. EqualsMCSquared 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• How about this: Merge the section "Specific Jewish-law decisions" to Conservative responsa, merge "Jewish observance in the context of Conservative Halakha" into Conservative Judaism, merge "Differences from Orthodox theology" into Committee on Jewish Law and Standards or Halakha. The title Conservative responsa is better than Conservative Halakha for the bulk of the material since it only refers to responsa that are rejected by Orthodox Judaism. This avoids all of problems of the overlap between Conservative and Orthodox Halakha. Any objections? Jon513 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)