Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim view of Ali (second nomination)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslim view of Ali

• Delete if you actually look at the article it is a list of random quotes by "non-muslims". Content fork, WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information, WP:OWN, etc... The first nomination was kept by no consenus with keep arguments being about my supposed "bad faith conduct" not the merits of the article itself. Jersey Devil 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a list of "random quotes" by "non-muslims". The people quoted are not just any non-muslims. They are Islamic scholars who are not muslims. Most non-muslims are not Islamic scholars, and most Islamic scholars are not non-muslims, so this combination is somewhat special. (Also, most if not all would easily pass the notability test.) The quotes are not random, They are highly specific about Ali; how are they random quotes? Further, this is not a content fork but an "article spinout"; see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles and also how this is actually recommended in Wikipedia:Summary style#Avoidance of POV splits. As such, the article nicely complements Sunni view of Ali and Shi'a view of Ali. As to the alleged violation of WP:OWN, that would be the case if some editor tried to keep others from editing his or her articles, for example by indiscriminately reverting others' edits, and refusing to engage in meaningful dialogue or attempts to reach consensus. None of this is evident in the article's history. --Lambiam^Talk 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Postscriptum. As to Jersey Devil's claim that the merits of the article were not considered, please see the discussion for the first nomination. For some more background, see this list. --Lambiam^Talk 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge this and all "...view of Ali" pages into Ali's page. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, and wikify. TheMadBaron 06:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. KleenupKrew 11:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 1652186 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam.--Striver 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is articial is just pov and its not possible to make npov , I'm not muslim should my view of ali be on that articial ? (Gnevin 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Are you a notable Islamic scholar? Then the answer is yes. Just give us a pointer to your scholarly publications concerning Ali, and your view will be promptly added. --Lambiam^Talk 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this "not possible to make npov", but Jewish view of Jesus perfectly npov? Could you either explain that, or reconsider your vote?--Striver 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish articial is npov in my opinion in that its its a collection of thought and idea accept by the majority of jews its also contains the facts of what jew's belive . The ali articial is just a load of quotes of peoples personal views which the arent fact in anyway . While the jewish artical contains some of this baseless personal opinion namely 3 sub sections of section 2 . The majority of the articial is sound.(Gnevin 19:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

Do I read you correctly? You mean the exposition of what Maimonides and Nahmanides wrote on the subject? Do you realize what you are saying? This is an article on the Jewish view of Jesus, and you say that some of the greatest and most influential Jewish scholars may not be quoted?? Because it is "just a load of quotes of peoples personal views which the arent fact in anyway"??? Well well. --Lambiam^Talk 22:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge for better organization and less needless forking. I like the content, but I don't see why it should be split off. I also don't find it in violation of WP:OWN, although I can see the argument... other than [1], it seems that only one user has added content. --CRGreathouse 06:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you merge the <X> view on Ali articles into the main article, almost half (48.8%) of the text will be taken up by the views. Isn't that a bit disproportional? --Lambiam^Talk 12:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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