Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnian Mujahideen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Mujahideen

Bosnian Mujahideen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) –

I am nominating this article as a neutral party. Concerns have been expressed that the title of the article is a neologism. Related to that concern, some editors expressed the connected belief that the article is inherently contrary to NPOV and unavoidably original research. Whether or not the topic is notable as such is another related issue. Vassyana (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice This is a somewhat controversial topic. Please try to keep cool and polite. I politely request that participants strike out any inappropriate comments. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


  • I checked Google Books. "Bosnian Mujahideen" returned only 7 hits (1 doubled) + Bosnian Muslim and "Bosnian" mujahideen forces (most of these used "mujahideen" not "Mujahideen", btw - there was no organization called Bosnian Mujahideen).
This while Bosnia Mujahideen (not "Bosnia Mujahideen") returned ~380, "foreign fighters" bosnia returned 56, "foreign volunteers" bosnia returned 42, and "muslim volunteers" bosnia returned 72.
Incidentally, there are several articles covering this subject (Mujahideen#Bosnia and Herzegovina, The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war#For the Bosniaks, 7th Muslim Brigade as of these I'm aware of). --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - no vote in this. The term is hardly new. Variations of the term (e.g. "Mujahideenis") were used during the 1992-1996 war. It's not a neologism, but a POV-loaded label. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This is regarding "Bosnian Mujahideen" (sounds like some organization, capital letters and all), not "mujahideen in Bosnia" (covered in several articles). Also why do you think "mujahideen" is "POV-loaded"? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Aaaand where exactly in the article was the term "Bosnian mujahideen" used? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice that I suggest that the article name is moved to Bosnian mujahideen so that it is a descriptive title. The BBC says mujahideen in Bosnia which is the same as saying "Bosnain mujahideen" as an example of similar use see "British Gurkhas" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No, not the same. They were not Bosnian mujahideen, like there were Afghan mujahideen in the case of Afghanistan. They were foreign mujahideen. Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) is the term often used for the Muslim volunteers to fight on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. is not true. It's used very rarely - almost never. El-Mujahid, on the other way, apparently was an actual name of the foreign volunteer unit. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
British Gurkhas are not British. Your argument about the content of the article should be on the talk page of the article, rather than here which is to discuss if the page should be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK: British Gurkhas - Gurkhas (yes, exactly because they "are not British"). Now you understand, on your own example? Also, I did not nominate it (or even suggested it). The persosn who did didn't came here for some reason. (I guess I'll tell them now.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No I don't understand your position. Just because Wikipedia does not have an article entitled "British Gurhkas" does not mean that the expression is not used and is a shorthand for Gurkhas who are or have served the British Crown,[1] just as Indian Gorkhas is used as a shorthand for Gorkhas who have server in the Indian Army.[2]--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
HanzoHattori's "argument" falls under WP:OSE: "To simply say 'Other Stuff Exists' as one's sole rationale for creation, retention, or deletion (using an 'other stuff doesn't exist' direction) is neither convincing nor proper, and usually not acceptable in discussions." --Hereward77 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh. You know, I checked, and "British Gurkhas" actually is used in literature. But no-one redirected Brigade of Gurkhas to "British Gurkhas". Amazing, how can it be? You've got to do this ASAP, I guess. (And there's also British Gurkhas Nepal, which is AN ACTUAL NAME OF ORGANISATION, too. Not someone's own invention, which is then falsely claimed to be "often" used.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a blog, isn't it? I just checked this guy, and this is what I found: "He currently writing a book about terrorism titled From Bosnia to Beslan: How the West Spread al-Qaeda." :eyesroll: Yeah, a real expert. Oh, and what else? "He began his career in journalism at Spiked's predecessor, the journal of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Living Marxism, until it was forced to close following a libel action brought by ITN." The libel case was, incidentally, regarding Serbian crimes in Bosnia. (And LM also denied the Rwandan Genocide.[3] Nice guys, these "revolutionary communists".) I have no idea why The Guardian allows him to even blog on their website. (Ah, and "O'Neill has ridiculed those who wish to take action to reduce carbon emissions in order to tackle global warming." He's a real expert on everything!) --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstanding the web site. The Guardian place their editorials and opinion pieces on this site and invite comment on them. They also place other articles by journalists on this site. The site has an editorial overview including and editor for commissions which the piece by Brendan O’Neill is, (see Comment is free for more details). The Guardian Online profile of O’Neill makes it clear that he is left wing, but one would expect that for people who contribute opinion pieces to the Guardian, and the profile states that "His journalism has been widely published on both sides of the Atlantic, including in the Spectator, the New Statesman, the Guardian, the Catholic Herald, the American Prospect, Reason, Slate and Salon magazines, and the Christian Science Monitor. He also writes regular reports for BBC News Online and is British correspondent for the Polish political weekly Prze Kroj." Which should give you some idea why the Guardian commentisfree site commission articles from him. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian is liberal, not "revolutionary communist". Here's what The Guardian said about Living Marxism: Life after Living Marxism: Fighting for freedom - to offend, outrage and question everything; Genocide? What genocide? Serbian atrocities were not the only ones Living Marxism tried to deny; calling themj Poison in the well of history; and even Someone's dumb - and then, after "Living Marxism has learnt the hard way that it cannot throw stones through windows and be able to run giggling down the street without being chased", allows LM veterans to continue their lies... now in the The Guardian? Oh. Okay, makes a perfect sense I guess. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the term is used to describe the mujahideen operating in Bosnia, for example, see the research paper and book with the title "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" [my bold] by terrorism expert Evan F. Kohlmann (published, among other things, in the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs) on Bosnian Mujahideen and their connection with global terrorist networks. The article is based on reliable references and the matter presented in as NPOV as possible. Note that I have been involved as an editor in this article. However, I would have nothing against changing the title from "Bosnian Mujahideen" (capital "M") to "Bosnian mujahideen" (small "m"). (Osli73 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand. It's more like "Afghan-Bosnian...Network" (of mujahideen), not "(Afghan-)Bosnian Mujahideen". Geez, even book you linked is actually called The Afghan-Bosnian Network - no "Bosnian mujahideen" whatsoever. I just showed you there are only 7 books mentioning this phrase (out of several hundred books more or less on the issue), and not in the titles but AT ALL. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Osli73, there is no need for such misrepresentation of sources. The title you cite: "The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" by Evan F. Kohlmann war just a research/working title (and it is about the network), he changed it when published his book into a subtitle "The Afghan-Bosnian Network" (without mentioning Mujahideen). Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Osli73. Mujahideen do operate in Bosnia, and I have seen a report on NTV Hayat about a document which clearly states that there are mujahideen operating in Bosnia. --Prevalis (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I find this is amusing how everyone keep misunderstanding the issue. Oh, did I mention there's even no "Afghan mujahideen" article? There was, but now it's just redirect - to the main article (mujahideen). "Bosnian Mujahideen" article is a sole separate one. I don't comment on its content, because frankly I didn't read it (it looks badly written, though). But I don't think it's needed. So, DELETE. If stuff there is any stuff okay, then integrate with The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war, 7th Muslim Brigade, El Mujahid, whatever (I noticed there's much stuff about indicted persons, why not make their own articles?). Oh, I just noticed El Mujahid (which was apparently the actual name of the unit) was made only a redirect by Osli to the supposed Bosnian Mujahideen group (who claims his term is "often used", while it's not - see my searches). Claear enough now? --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I did another search: [4] - 4 out of 10 first hits are about a team of Sarajevo videogame players, while the rest is mostly video sharing websites - plus a blog entry. The next page is the same, still mostly about a clip (titled Bosnian Mujahideen: Yesterday & Today), and again these videogamers. In these top 20 hits, there is only one actual article (Reuters), which (besides the title, which identified the country, not a supposed group) only mentioned "former Islamic Mujahideen fighters", "foreign Mujahideen" (twice, bald mine), "MUJAHIDEEN", and "the Mujahideen" also twice (as well as simply "ex-fighters", "former fighters", and just "foreigners").[5] This how "often used" this term is. Ergo, "Bosnian Mujahideen" article should be about a videogame clan from Bosnia and a video clip on Youtube clones (the latter one being the vast majority of all "Bosnian Mujahideen" hits, that is 862[6] - with only 438 about the Counter-Strike players etc.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hanzo, I don't really understand your reasoning here. Just because there are video game players calling themselves "Bosnian Mujahideen" (wherever did they get that idea from, one can always ask, though) has no bearing on the academic use of the term - as exemplified by the Kohlmann article. Just because there is a lot of 'noise' on the internet when you search for the term on Google doesn't mean it's not a valid term that is also used in an academic environment. I agree that there are many other terms for the "Bosnian Mujahideen", though I believe this one is the best.Osli73 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And (mostly) only them. Where they got it... from you? Evan F. Kohlmann wrote about "Afghan-Bosnian mujahideen network", not about a group called "Bosnian Mujahideen" (see the confirmation in his final book). So, my proposition after I searched google for books and websites: Bosnian Mujahideen is a group of Counter-Strike players from Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are often accused of fragging other players a lot. It is also a title of a popular video on the Internet (titled Bosnian Mujahideen: Yesterday & Today). Rarely, it was also used to describe foreign mujahideen who fought during the Bosnian war (see the role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war). (An explaination, because some people don't understand many things: this was an example of sarcasm.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hanzo, as I've stated before. Google searches and Bosnian video gamers isn't a relevant here. What is relevant is that (a) there certainly were Bosnian mujahideen and (b) the term is used by Kohlmann. However, I can agree on changing from Mujahideen to mujahideen.Osli73 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
So, what is revelant here? (a) "you say so, and almost EVERY SINGLE BOOK AND ARTICLE is wrong"? (b) you think one guy used it, when he really didn't"? (I explained you few times already, and I'll do it again: the phrase used by this single person was "Afghan-Bosnian mujahideen network/Afghan-Bosnian network", not "Bosnian mujahideen") Whoah, that's a lot. Don't delete my stuff. --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you also object to the title "Mujahideen in Bosnia" which in Google search returns 'about 2,810 for "Mujahideen in Bosnia"' one of which is a Reuters report and another the previously mentioned BBC article. Personally I think that "Bosnian mujahideen" is more elegant, but I could understand if you thought it confusing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Because they had their unit, and it's name was El Mujaid. Like, what is better title, OMON or "Paramilitary police in Russia"? There was El Mujahid article before Osli came around with his "often". There's also a an article on their parent unit (7th Muslim Brigade). --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What about the post war issues (which to date have not ended) when the foreign volunteers were no longer in military units but their presence in Bosnia is still considered to be a political problem (In the way that those who volunteered to fight for the Bosnian Serbs or the Bosnian Croats do not seem to be)? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. This is briefly mentioned, but might be expanded (and the article re-written if needed). --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I looked into the issue. Actually, the small before-Osli article was redirected into the parent unit article by the original author.[7] Then Osli came around and did this weird-ass thing:[8]. This was fixed later in this way:[9] it is now. So, no, the original writers decided the 7th Muslim Brigade is enough and now I agree. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Osli keeps stealing this article for himself. No matter the original author of most of the article redirected it elsewhere. Stylish. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And now I looked onto 7th Muslim Brigade talk page and the Bosnian Internet War goes on there, too. But, it's not my problem and actually I don't know enough on this subject. I'm only here because Osli was linking his BM as a "main article" everywhere he could, sparking negative reactions from some other users. I've got interested and it turned out the term was indeed largely invented by him. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Mujahideen undoubtedly did operate in Bosnia, with the support of the West, Russia (yes, Russia, see Victor Bout), Iran and Saudi Arabia. --Hereward77 (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[COMMENT REMOVED] --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hanzo, what do you mean by this comment and who are you referring to?Osli73 (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered that he/she was referring to me.[10] People without an argument often resort to ad hominem attacks. --Hereward77 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[DELETED REMARK 09:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)] "Concerns have been expressed that the title of the article is a neologism. Related to that concern, some editors expressed the connected belief that the article is inherently contrary to NPOV and unavoidably original research. Whether or not the topic is notable as such is another related issue." But congratulations on discovering I was reffering to you in the comment directed to you. At least you eventually understood this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This term is made up by @OSLI during one of his edit wars. It is not the first time he was banned, but hey this is just ridiculous. He somehow decided to make balance between Srebrenica massacre with a few Arab frustrating fighters who came to help after they saw genocide on TV. OK, tommorow maybe I am going to made up Bosnian Jedi name for Jedi who are very popular in Bosnian cinemas...Come on guys...isn't it enough, all this special war by Serb/Croat nationalists in Wikipedia...I didn't mean to be rude, but I had to say this...Btw there are several articles covering this subject (Mujahideen#Bosnia and Herzegovina, The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war#For the Bosniaks, 7th Muslim Brigade etc...another cloned article with an unknown name is hmmm... ?! --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was around 6,000 foreign Islamic fighters in Bosnia, including senior al-Qaeda people. Even Rupert Murdoch's pro-establishment Sky News admits that. [11] And even if the Srebrenica massacre did happen, it doesn't erase the fact that Izetbegovic was an Islamic fundamentalist whose views were at odds with Western democratic principles. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"And even if the Srebrenica massacre did happen". Get out. --HanzoHattori (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Go to "Jenin massacre" and you'll see what I mean. I might add that Tim Marshall mentions the word 'mujahideen' eight times in his Sky News report. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google News Archives search shows that there are plenty of sources for this. [12]. Google Scholar comes up with plenty as well. [13]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[COMMENT REMOVED] The actual number of hits is 1 not 738[14], and 5 (actually 4, because there is the "network" again) not 889.[15] The new definition of "plenty" is now "1". --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, turned out I was wrong - "plenty" is now "null" (the only article found does not contain this phrase in a serious meaning, and istead says While bin Ladenite propagandists, as well as Western journalists, have expended a vast quantity of ink on the topic of the Bosnian "mujahideen," in reality they played almost no perceptible role in the war.). --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (Strong delete) There is no concrete evidence of Bosnian Mujahideen(s). Just because of one or two books that were written with clear bias we cannot write an article on Wikipedia [that is based on one book]. This was why an article concerning the Muslim causalities at Jasenovac was deleted a few months ago, since there were only a couple of books on the issue. There needs to be historical research backed by various sides in order for someone to write about this issue on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a blog nor is a 'web site' designed to formulate new ideas or concepts. We had disputes about this new formation of concepts concerning "Serbophobia", "Bosniakophobia", and "Croatophobia" articles. Besides Darko Trifunovic, a Serb, who is a terrorism expert claimed/supported this issue and other similar made up issues. He was supposed to be the host of the "11th Congress of European Police" but his invitation was revoked due to uprise against him. The only reason many Bosniaks and others rose up against him is since they knew he was wrong for claiming that the Srebrenica Massacre (International Crimes court sees it as genocide) was not genocide. The international community sees it as genocide. Plus, he mentioned about the role of BiH in supporting Islamic terrorism, etc. He is a completely biased person who was prevented from hosting the 11th Congress of Eu Police with reason. The European Union does not view Bosnia as a place of Islamic Terrorism. Therefore (having said all of this), this article is based on complete bias and not enough historical evidence to prove such a great existence of Bosnian Mujahideen fighters. Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here mentioned Darko Trifunovic in any way. The plural of mujahid is actually mujahideen. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Another test. As another user (unintentionally) showed, Google News Archives search also shows that there is only 1 hit on this phrase[16] (actually 0). Google Scholar comes up with only 5[17] (actually up to 4). ENOUGH NOW? If it's still "not a neologism", I don't know what is. --HanzoHattori (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This term simply isn't used. It appears very sporadically, even on the internet, and has been shown to be an inherently POV characterization. The subject that it's supposed to cover is addressed in numerous other articles that have been mentioned here; there is no reason why the supporters of this one can't simply redirect their efforts there, instead of causing needless dispute over a controversial name. Live Forever (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Please, don't make mockery of Wikipedia :( --HarisM (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, certain Bosnian trolls have deleted a lot of material from mainstream sources in these articles, replacing it with UN.Org whitewashes - hence the creation of this article. I was blocked by Wikipedia for restoring this material, and right now this is the best article on the subject. Bosnia is now regarded as a major base for radical Islamists in Europe. Deleting this article would be tantamount to a political cover-up. --Hereward77 (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because it is:
  • a POV fork
  • fabrication
  • written by a user with a scary block log
  • supported by another user with anti-Muslim agenda.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being anti-Muslim and anti-Islamism are two entirely different things. --Hereward77 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep article is well referenced and all info in other articles should be merged into this. Also, I suggest the name Mujahideen in Bosnia and Herzegovina --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete.: Contrary to what has been claimed, the expression "Bosnian mujahideen" is not used colloquially, as is demonstrated by the many negative Google searches, and so at best it's an ORish neologism. Also, it's blatantly wrong, as the people concerned were mostly foreign fighters, so they were obviously NOT Bosnian. If someone wants to write an article on this subject, they should write it under "El Mujahid". The current article is badly written, badly formatted, and clearly non-neutral. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So why not just rename it Mujahideen in Bosnia? They clearly did operate in Bosnia, and there were mujahideen units within the Bosnian army itself. And, yes, they were trained by the Iranians. Dr. Yossef Bodansky covers this issue extensively in his two books on the Bosnian conflict. --Hereward77 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (added) and Complex Merge(/added) The current title is a non-notable neologism. Any useful information can be moved to other articles. If those articles become too long, proper daughter articles may be created. (added) A summary of the non-official military forces should be merged into Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A more detailed daughter article should be created, Paramilitary forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The content of this article can go in there. This would be best practice NPOV. Jehochman Talk 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. It is notable, and has been covered in the mainstream media. As I said earlier, Tim Marshall used the term mujahideen eight times in his Sky News report: The Hidden Army Of Radical Islam in Bosnia --Hereward77 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
So what? There is article called Mujahideen, but we are talking here about Bosnian Mujahideen, this isn't a common name. Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and we are discussing a name change. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: real simple, rename it to a better title on the lines of Islamic terrorism in Bosnia or Terrorism in Bosnia, etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How about Paramilitary forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, per my modified comment above? Jehochman Talk 22:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Terrorism is not the same term as foreign volunteers (a volunteer isn't a terrorist by default), this subject is covered in The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. Grandy Grandy (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and you and your friend "The Dragon of Bosnia" have repeatedly whitewashed that article, deleting material from mainstream sources. That is why this one had to be created. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I wonder if it could be anything shorter but if thats ok with people, I'm ok too. In any case, any kind of rename would work out better than what we have right now. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How about Radical Islam in the Balkans? --Hereward77 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds better and applies more broadly than what I was going to suggest "Islamic extremists in the Balkans". I like the term radical Islam. Its short and accurate. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, could you please explain: 1.) What exactly is radical Islam? 2.) Where is it found in the Balkans? 3.) Why such information doesn't belong in previously existing articles? Thanks. Asim Led (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For the ideology, see Islamism. Where is it found? I think we have provided enough sources here already, but here's another: Wahhabism: From Vienna to Bosnia --Hereward77 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is a clearly notable (and highly encyclopediac) topic. It is clearly a pretty well sourced article. POV problems here can easily be fixed without deletion. Yahel Guhan 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Yahel Guhan, what, exactly, are the POV issues you refer to? I have tried to portray this topic in a serious and NPOV manner, basing the statements on good sources.Osli73 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at previous discussion? Nobody's denying that some of the material in this article could be used elsewhere, but it has an inherently POV title and its contents are already discussed elsewhere. Asim Led (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a completely POV neologism. Asim Led (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Asim Led, exactly, what are the POV issues you refer to?Osli73 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. This article is specifically about radical Islamist activity in Bosnia, and should not be diluted into other articles. This is a notable issue which deserves a Wikipedia article. Rename to Radical Islam in the Balkans, per myself and Matt57. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2008 (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.