Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latino Muslims

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latino Muslims

Latino Muslims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete This article is a complete waste of time.

I think the first thing we have to ask ourselves is whether Wikipedia is merely an indescriminate collection of information. I have no idea how "true" this information is, especially given the dubious sources (getting to that in a bit), but frankly what purpose does this information serve? It informs us that there are latino-muslims.

And that's it.

Huzzah! They exist! Couldn't we simply say that in one line in the latino thread when discussing demographics? "there are also a growing number of latino-muslims." Why is this any more "separate-entry worthy" than say, latino-sikhs? What information is being presented to us that makes latin-muslims noteworthy? Do they have a noticeably different culture, something syncretic perhaps? Have they accomplished anything recently? Have they faced some form of persecution perhaps?

Clearly from the information in this article the answers are no, no, no and no - Which at first I thought might mean there is just a development issue with this thread. But then I looked up latino-muslims online and found only the following: articles acknowledging their existance and lots of articles by muslim missionary groups arguing "You can be a latino and a muslim too!" and that's pretty much it.

The article really is utilizing the most information available, it's simply not anything worth noting! At least in this level of detail.

But let's take a look at the details. The glorious cultural contributions of latino muslims are... LADO, a defunct islamic missionary group, and "Alianza Islámica" which actually IS worth noting because of its civil rights impact in america (or so the article claims)!

Unfortunately Alianza Islámica is completely original research with ZERO sources and furthermore it is plaguerized directly from "http://www.hispanicmuslims.com/articles/ranksincreasing.html" which is yet another islamic missionary organization directly targeting latinos.

And there's the rub, this is all religious advocacy... all of the information in here is from islamic missionary organizations, utilized to push their latino agenda forward.

This links to nothing but unsourced plageurized articles, and the latino navbar, the information could easily be reported (without advertising islamic missionary groups) simply by adding a line about a growing number of muslims to the relevant demographics section of the latino thread. Consequently this article is not worthy of a separate thread, breaks the soapbox rule, and we lose nothing by axing it. --Skyhawk4584 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is a stub on an interesting topic. --JuanMuslim ^1m 04:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I agree with the nom that the article mostly states the obvious, and provides too little info to merit a separate article. The Islamic missionary organisations may be notable (depending on their number of converts, coverage in external sources etc.) but no evidence is provided for this. Delete unless expanded by end of AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided. This article is linked from Template:Latinos in the United States, along with Hispanics and religion (currently a redlink), Christian Latinos, and Latino Jews. Christian Latinos and Latino Jews are currently not much better written than Latino Muslims. All of these are potentially worthy of being quality articles, but for now they would need a lot of work to get up to that standard. --Metropolitan90 18:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I consider a shame. However, see [1]. Upper estimates are 70,000-200,000 Hispanic Muslims. However, this is in the U.S. as far as I know. Middle Eastern sheikhs and clerics may have funnelled the oil money to build mosques.--Patchouli 18:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

- Metropolitan, if you will notice there are actual cultural contributions to the latino identity that are associated with the jewish latino and catholic latino articles. The most obvious example being the influence of the Catholic Church in the latino identity. What impact have muslim latinos had on the latino identity? Anything more noteworthy than sikh-latinos? Why not articles for these insignificant sub identities as well? They offer nothing to the main article describing the latino ethnicity, just like this muslim-latino article, yet they do not have their own individual pages. Also, how can one ignore the obvious influence of islamic missionary groups, they are directly quoted and even advertised in the thread. Who cares if there are "dawah organizations," that's not information worth reporting.

On what basis do you say there is potential for a quality article here? It's simply reporting the existance of a subdemongraphic that have made absolutely no impact on the latino identity. They are a part of the identity, shearly because they exist - in which case they belong as a single line descriptor in the main article.

- Patchouli, Your vote shouldn't be controlled by whether you "like" such developments or what is fueling them clearly there are latino muslims this fact is not disputed nor do I believe it should go away, but you should be asking if this worth a full page thread, whether this is merely advertising islamic proselytism (numerous citations of islamic "dawa" organizations suggests this is so), and whether the information here presented is more appropriately described in a simple line or two on the main page.--67.163.191.97 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep The notability of Latino Muslims is dependent on the term Latino. The term is often misunderstood to mean Latin American and thus exclude people from Spain. I can elaborate upon request. This article can easily be expanded to become a good article. Someone asked on this AfD: "What impact have muslim latinos had on the latino identity?" This question should be answered in the article. Latino Muslims have impacted Latino architecture in a profound way. Please see Alhambra and Mezquita. Moreover, Islam has had an impact on Latino culture. An example of this is the impact it has had on the Spanish language. For example, the word Ojalá is derived from Arabic. To quote the BBC, "The etymology is quite interesting as it comes from the Arabic law šá lláh, meaning 'If Allah wishes'." Please see [2]. It is also important to recognize the impact of Islam in Spain, after all "Islam is the second largest religion in Spain". Agha Nader 00:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Your answer directly contradicts the term "Latino" which as defined by the article and minority groups is: "Latino (and the form Latina for females), as used in American English, refers to a United States national of Latin American origin. [1] It is borrowed from Spanish latino, shortened from latinoamericano. [2]" That is verbatim from the article. If you don't like this term, take it up with the main article, this is not the place to introduce your reformulation of the word.

• It is a US term for people from Latin America. Furthermore latino identity is not exclusive to any "home country" especially not Spain, for which the original term "hispanic" was thrown out because it was exclusive of south american countries that had no connection to Spain (ie Brazil, which was a portuguese colony).

• Alhambra, the Mezquita et cetera are valuable pieces of Spanish culture, to which Islam has contributed. Naturally this extension through the colony homeland (Spain) played an impact on the latino identity; however, that is already communicated by the fact the latino article acknowledges Spanish culture has played a heavy role in the latino identity - links from the spanish culture designations describe Islamic influence.

• Ergo there is no need to reiterate the obvious indirect impact, especially since it is "once removed." This thread is about "Latinos," which are a unique new-world specific syncretic culture in the Americas, incorporating Spanish, Portuguese, African, Carribean and native American culture to form this separate ethnicity. The question is, where have these muslim latinos (who as you and your articles acknowledge are new to Islam) made any contribution to the latino identity which is worth noting? We're not talking about inherited second hand influences from Old World Spain, but actual identifiable contributions of latino (per the definition)-muslims, here in the New World.

• There are ZERO. This article demonstrates absolutely no reason for why this subset of people is worth identifying as a separate article when we can just as easily incorporate the useful sources (if there are any) into a one line demographic report "there are a growing number of latino muslims." Rather than creating this elaborate article dedicated to informing us of all the recent trends in Islamic missionary groups.

• This is wikipedia, not wikidawah, religious groups need to backoff with the advertisement. --- Skyhawk 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I am changing to a delete recommendation but not for the reasons cited by Skyhawk. The delete is based on the fact that of the four sentences of prose in this article, three are just statements of the obvious, devoid of content: "Latino Muslims are Latinos whose religion is Islam. Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims. Latino Muslims live in various cities within the United States." If the article is improved before the AfD period is up, I may change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 18:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the article: "Latino Muslims are Latinos whose religion is Islam. Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." Hispanic people include Spaniards. Agha Nader 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Please look at this map

The Hispanic world. Dark green denotes Hispanic countries, while green denotes areas populated by a large Hispanic community

As you can see, Spaniards are, indeed, Hispanic. I can see why you would be confused. After researching the term Latino, I found out there are many misconceptions about the term. Thus, I propose adding a few sentences clarifying the term Latino. The article already states that Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims. Do you doubt that Spaniards are Hispanic? Agha Nader 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Latino is New World, Spanish is Old World, Moorish is Ancient World

• Stop trying to pull Europeans into the picture, if you are European (as in Spanish), especially European 800 years before the New World was even discovered you are not latino. As the article clearly says the term "latino" is short for "latinoamericana," it is a new world designation, and an ethnicity according to the US census. If you come from Spain you are European, different ethnic designation - for good reason, as mentioned before Latino culture is unique to the New World, it is a new syncretic ethnicity, not an old world monolithic culture like Spanish culture. Hispanic and Spanish are mutually exclusive terms, to quote the wikipedia Hispanic entry "The term "Spanish" to denote a person from or of descent from a Latin American country is incorrect, as "Spanish" means a person who is from Spain."

• We already have an article detailing the accomplishments of the people who build Al Hambra and the Cathedral of Cordoba, and you can see that article by typing "Moor" into the search button to your left. They existed about 1300 to 600 years ago, in Europe, and never saw the New World. The present article we are discussing is an irrelevant subset of people within the much larger and far more significant syncretic New World Latino ethnicity. The people this article discusses have accomplished nothing more than merely existing which is not worth reporting - certainly not worth reporting as a full separate article. Wikipedia is simply not a listing of everything that exists in the world.

• You, everyone else and google have not produced any serious contribution to the Latino identity that latino-muslims have brought to the picture (and by serious contributions I do not mean "they set up organizations to proselytize Islam to muslims"). This article serves no other purpose than to further the agenda of "wikidawah." There is no information here, as metropolitan correctly noted out it says the same sentence four times - I suggest we just say it once, as a small insignificant rider to a demographics section "there are a growing number of latino muslims."

• Nor will there be any information here, every time it is pointed out that this thread is pointless those whose pet issue this is come running along to save it from the clutches of deletion by whining about how they have mountains of information and there is great potential and they will personally see to it that the article is expanded. And each time everybody just goes along with in and one week later all we have added one more line reiterating that there are muslim latinos. I'm curious what it will be this time if the AFD fails "Muslim Latino as mentioned before are Latinos who are Muslims, however it could be said with equal accuracy that they are Muslims who are Latino." --- Skyhawk 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Agha Khan,

Latino (and the form Latina for females), as used in American English, refers to a United States national of Latin American origin. It is borrowed from Spanish latino, shortened from latinoamericano. The term "Latino" refers to any person having Latin American background and is often taken to be a synonym with "Hispanic". However, while official use of the term Hispanic has its origins in the Census Bureau in the 1970s, activist groups such as MEChA, Crusade for Justice, Brown Berets, Black Berets, and the Young Lords often preferred the term Latino because they felt it is more inclusive of the broad range of peoples in Latin America. The term "Latino" is typically understood by some to mean immigrants from Hispanophone countries in North, Central and South America and their U.S.-born descendants. It refers specifically to persons of Latin American origin. 'People from Spain self-categorize as latinos in the Spanish language, but in that case it means "Latin," rather than 'Latin American or 'US citizen or resident of Latin American origin' (a 'Latin American American', in other words), as the Spanish are one of the Latin peoples of Europe.

Clearly for your argument to be valid the entire definition of Latino in wikipedia needs to be changed. You're arguing something that is not being discussed here, the definition of "latino" used in this article is the group of people in the latino entry - which is exclusively New World. The Moors were not latinos.

Latinos origins are in "Latin America" - a place that did not exist at the time of the Moors. Ergo it is impossible to call Moors "Latinos."

Look at this map, it's the relevant one:

Just answer the question, what cultural significance are "latino muslims," what makes them worthy of their own separate entry aside from latino sikhs, latino-scientologists or latino-over the top football fans? Nothing. Furthermore what is the relevance of noting the existence "Latino Dawah Organizations?" This is just furthering the "wikidawah project." --- Skyhawk 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Encyclopedia, interesting.Bakaman 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Skyhawk. Do not confuse the scope of the title of this article with that of the Islam in Spain. Baristarim 00:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states "Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." As you can see, Hispanics are included. And obviously Spaniards are Hispanic. There is further evidence of this. Please see [3]. This template is included in the article. The template clearly shows that Spanish Americans are Latino and are included in the template. Furthermore, Spaniards recognize themselves as Latino ("People from Spain self-categorize as Latinos in the Spanish language"). This is not to be confused with the term Latin American. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Please note: The name of the article is not Latin American Muslims, it is Latino Muslims. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

The map user Skyhawk (a new user whose only experience is this AfD), has provided is of Latin America, and is thus irrelevant to our discussion. In contrast, the Hispanic American map is the one of issue. This is because the article states "Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims." In fact, the article never uses the term Latin American Muslim. Agha Nader 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

"a new user whose only experience is this AfD" that's called an ad hom attack - it's a logical fallacy because it avoids the issue, something you've excelled at thusfar, and instead attacks the credibility of the person. The article doesn't say "latin american muslim" because it would be redundant, Latino = americans of latin american descent, not spaniards we have a fabulous word for people from spain "Spanish." You clearly have a problem with the wikipedia definition of latino, you said so in your first objection about how this is all just a small misunderstanding. Why don't you push your definition of latino in that thread? For the sake of consistency we must all accept the wikipedia definition of latino and debate the issue at hand - whether there is any point in identifying the existence of latino muslims.

Once again my question to you is what have latino muslims done of any consequence that requires a full dedicated thread?

User Bakasuprman, I agree it has an encyclopedic value - the question is this much? Is there any reason we can't include all the useful information in this thread (and advertising Muslim missionary groups is not "useful") in a one line acknowledgement that "there are a growing number of latino muslims" in a demographics section of the main latino article, describing the scope and bounds of the latino identity? As it stands the article says just that - four times. Several users have promised to upgrade the article every time its utility is challenged, and all have never followed up. There simply is nothing more to say than "they exist" and you don't need a full article for that.

I mean at least with the latinos and Christianity thread you can talk about the cultural significance of the Catholic Church in the latino identity, its impact on distinctly latin american cultural endeavors like santos in art, which synthesize native american idols and Catholic icon veneration - or any number of syncretic religions in Brazil that have popped up like condomble. That one makes obvious sense. And they are the achievements of Catholic latinos - not spanish latinos, or even more ludicrous moorish achievements, but rather the work of this distinctly new world group.

But latino muslims? What have they done that is worth noting other than forming a couple missionary orgs (LADO is defunct incidentally), and possibly formed an organization that had something to do with civil rights - except for the fact that tidbit of information is completely unsourced, the page it links to has zero sources at all and if you google it you find out it is plaguerized from the organization itself.

How many shades of shady would you say that is?

Supporters of this article have yet to show one iota of accomplishment or contribution to the latino identity, from latino-muslims and that is the crux of the issue - the difference between a one liner acknowledging they exist in the main article, or an entry with an indepth discussion on what their unique achievements are and why they are worth acknowledging. --- Skyhawk 03:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GASP I was wrong! This article does tell us something extremely valuable about the relevance of latino-muslims! They live in various cities in the United States!!

• Delete - No sources. Just using advocacy sites as references isn't enough. Please find an article by a WP:RS on the community of Latino Muslims and we have an article. - Merzbow 04:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There are no reliable sources in this article, and this is just some POV garbage article used for propaganda. Honestly, some people will create an article on anything no matter how un-notable a topic it is. This clearly isn't a notable topic. The majority of people don't even know of the existance of Latino muslims, and they still number less than a million.--Sefringle 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the precedent set by Christian Latinos and Latino Jews. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete whats the point of such categorization? --CltFn 12:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Some good demographics and topic is good to have some information about it. --- ALM 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound redundant but nobody is suggesting the demographic information disappear - rather it will be added to the main article as a one or two line statement instead of a full entry as a separate article. There is nothing artical worthy here, it doesn't meet the wikipedia requirements for notability and the discussion on muslim missionary groups is clear advocacy. Take these things away and you are confronted with the reality there is nothing being reported here except a link to an unsourced (yet still plaguerized) article and the same sentence restated four times. As already mentioned this doesn't meet the notability requirements ergo there is nothing else that can be said in this article - it is simply a waste of space at this time.--- Skyhawk 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.