Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crusade (modern)

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 there's no point to delete, it's just a redirect and nobody's offered a reason to delete it. I have the IRC CABAL backing me up, so don't mess with me, people! :-p Seriously, if anyone thinks this should go, the right place is Redirects for Deletion, not here. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade (modern)

This page has been recently created. It's not a well written page and I have tagged it NPOV and I expect other tags could be used as well. Chelman tagged it for speedy delete, and I will add his vote here for him. However, the term is real, and the concept probably important. I think speedy is too fast, so I am nominating it for AfD. I however, intend to vote 'weak keep' Regards, Ben Aveling 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Chelman per nom. First off a crusade implies a war to further a (christian)religious cause. No matter what people's stances on the war in Iraq are it is conducted by mostly secular countries with a strict division of church and state who have no interest in overthrowing a religion. I am guessing that the author intended the more colloquial usage of the word crusade. In that case I would still opt for deletion. While the resentment among sections of the Islamic populace is undeniable I don't think that the term Crusade describes it. Only a handful of rather extremist organisations use that term. There are possibly many other sites that use other terms for the perceived aggression. It would make no sense to have an article for each since we could then have Final Solution (modern), Western Lebensraum (modern) and many more crafty terms. An article on this matter should be titled something like Perception of the War in Iraq whereby it would become possible to shed light on what extreme, moderate and non-muslims think about it as well as what do the Americans, Europeans etc. think about it. This would be a much more valuable entry. I am guessing that a similar section is in fact already present in the War on Iraq topics. Chelman 11:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Badly written, but worth saving, as above. Ben Aveling 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Topic is inherently POV. Zora 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This user creates approximately ten new articles a day, many of which show up in AfD, as they are badly written stubs and strongly Shi'a POV. It takes us a lot longer to debate them than it does for him to create them. It's a losing battle. Some change in our procedures seems indicated. Zora 22:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research and WP:Complete Bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV/original research --tickle me 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete for reason already mentioned --RaiderAspect 23:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to POV/original research. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Tenth Crusade and Redirect. Googling for iraq crusade bush gives about 1,550,000 hits, so while the article may be POV, the term is real. And George Bush has described the GWOT on terror as a crusade. Only when he was told how much damage he was causing, did he stop using the term. He still describes it as a war on evil, which is more a religious term than a political one. All the arguments about POV I agree with. (I placed the POV tag myself, and I've checked the creator's edit history.) But the biggest argument is that there is already another page on this topic so I suggest a merge and redirect. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• speedy merge I am the creator of the article. I made a Wiki search, but did not found anything. I míssed Tenth Crusade. Speedy merge the article into it. As for Zora, i claim that it is natural that many of my articles get deleted, whem im doing "10 per day". Of all voted for deletion, two are going to get deleted and this one merged. That is a good record IMHO. --Striver 07:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment A good record would consist of having NO articles deleted and NOT making extra work for other editors. Zora 07:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yes, that would be the case fot people not creating anything. --Striver 09:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that would be the case for people not creating cruft. --Last Malthusian 09:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV/original research Bwithh 03:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the page to a redirect. Which could still be deleted of course. But may I suggest that the above votes not be considered as votes on deleting the redirect unless the signatures are refreshed? Thanks, Ben Aveling 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Preaky 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zora 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --tickle me 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

3 new/refreshed votes to delete. 0 to keep. (I'm abstaining.)

We could wait a little longer, but I suggest it's looking like consensus to delete even the redirect. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delere Izehar 22:16, 28 November 2005 (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.