Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aslim Taslam

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 keep as no consensus (3 keep, 3 delete; excluding my own vote. Some reasoning for both sides) The JPS^{talk to me} 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aslim Taslam

Not an article. It's not even clear, what's the intended topic is. --Pjacobi 19:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is in reference to the recent Papal controversy, it needs to be rewritten and expanded greatly, but it has potential in my opinion. KaoBear^(talk) 20:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article documents an ages old "threat". I want to be clear. I do not mean that Islam is a threat. I mean that the phrase Aslim Taslam is a threat. As such, though the article is very poor indeed, it is a valid and notable stub. I have deleted one link to an NN forum on the basis that this was surplus to requirements, nd feel that, though potentially contriovefrsial, the article earns its place here. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is part of the recent Papal controversy, they've threatened him by saying "Aslim Taslam." It is also part of muslim history. You can read more about it here. Yes, the article is very poor as of now, but it can definitely improve if more Wikipedians work on it. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:43, 23 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment If this is an age-old threat, why can't it be sourced by scholarly work? Do you think Encyclopaedica Britannica would accept "Jihad Watch" as source? --Pjacobi 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Jihad Watch isn't the source. If you had actually bothered to check into that Jihad Watch link, you'd notice that they are only citing the Jerusalem Post EliasAlucard|Talk 19:21, 23 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment Mass media one as the other. Not scholarly work. --Pjacobi 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I guess you must've missed this then: http://www.aslim-taslam.net/ EliasAlucard|Talk 21:12, 24 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment I don't dispute the existence of the phrase, but the current article is not much better than an article about black holes sourced only from The Simpsons. A real article can start equally well or better with a blank editbox. --Pjacobi 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's not even a valid point. A notable subject must not start with a higly detailed article. If the subject is notable, it's okay to begin with it as a stub. To be honest, I don't know much about this subject, but I'm sure other people do. That being said, we should give this article a chance. Besides, I've cited sources. You may not consider the Jerusalem Post reliable, but I think it is fairly reliable. And it's not like you can't cite sources from the media. EliasAlucard|Talk 01:18, 25 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

Comment But every article is required to define its lemma. This pseudo-stub misses: a) the translation, b) the Arabic script text, c) the information when, where and to whom Muhammed is reported to have it said. --Pjacobi 08:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's because I don't know anything about the subject. My God, you can't expect every contributor to be an expert on the articles they're working on. THAT'S THE REASON WHY WIKIPEDIA IS A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT. Now instead of complaining, you could help out. All of your reasons to delete this article aren't good enough. It seems you just want it deleted without giving it a chance to improve. EliasAlucard|Talk 13:08, 25 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

• Comment If this one-line article doesn't even explain what the phrase means, why keep it? --141.156.232.179 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Because it's a STUB. That means, the article is far from perfect. It also means it needs a lot of work. It is a notable subject. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:12, 24 Sept, 2006 (UTC+1)

• Delete: there is a vast corpus of Islamic scholarship out there...if this is real, then instead of harping on about the "recent Papal controversy" (a loathsome phrase), cite the source, expand the single badly written sentence into something that can (while keeping a straight face) be called an article, and there we go. But as it stands, the article is, in my opinion, pointless WP:NONSENSE. Byrgenwulf 22:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Byrgenwulf. Consign this incoherent substub to the flames, and if the subject matters at all, a better article will arise in its place. Anville 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A serious, wortwhile topic, but needs to be developed beyond a stub. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:14, 29 September 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.