Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic System of Islam (book)

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 of the debate was keep. AFD is not a substitute for {{cleanup}}. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic System of Islam (book)

Economic System of Islam (book) is an almost wholly empty stub. Of itself there is no assertion of notability. It was Prodded, and the prod was removed with no enhancement to the article along with prods on several similar articles by an anonymous editor (no reflection on the status of editor, who is entitled to anonymity). Since the article is no more than a placeholder I believe it should be up for peer review here in order to determine whether a stub which is just a placeholder is an article which should remain. My own view is Delete unless expanded. I am flagging several similar related articles for precisely the same reason:

Each of these articles is currently an almost entirely empty stub. Whetehr the subject of the article is notbale or not, these articles assert no notability. Fiddle Faddle 07:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, no harm and this small amount of information is no less than the little summaries on most of the book stubs. The books are notable and deleting these serves no purpose but to create more work for those creating them later. It's also good to have a broader diversity in books even if they are sub-stubs. gren グレン 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If there were evidence of any constructive editing work being undertaken I would start to support your argument. But these stubs are old stubs. Since there has been no substantive editing to these articles since creation, it seems to me that no work is likely to be done. This discussion is surely nothing to do with diversity but to do with quality. The quality is simply not present. Fiddle Faddle 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You are completely right... but, I'm not seeing why that's grounds for deletion. They aren't bad articles... they are sub-stubs. We have many articles like this around Wikipedia on subjects that are notable and they serve as placeholders that do no harm. I did the base work for creating most of the sura articles for the Qur'an... and most of them are still stubs... but, many of them have provided an easy base for expansion by various editors. Creating an article usually takes more motivation than adding a sentence to an already existing article. I figure that someday (who knows or cares when) someone will see "Islamic Way of Life" and add some fact about how it sold X copies in Pakistan... or anything... and it will expand. If I thought it was doing any harm or was in any way biased I'd vote for deleting it... but, it's not. I guess we just differ in opinion. gren グレン 07:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
        • That is the benefit of this process. We disgree. But we are neither of us important in the discussion except me to propose and you to oppose. You see sub-stubs as valid. I see them as invalid (no motivation to do more means no article). But others will review the articles and consesnus will be reached. And this is the reason I proposed these articles for deletion. I do not see wikipedia as a system of placeholders, but as an encyclopaedia. I thus feel that articles which do not meet notability for themselves shoudl not be present until that notability can be asserted within the article. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The fact that other stubs exist (and need expansion) is no reason they should also not be deleted like these. This is not a discussion on whether the respective stubs are "good" or "bad", but whether they are worth being in an encyclopedia in their current empty form. We don't need placeholders, we need articles. And it's disheartening that none of the Keep proponents have volunteered to expand the allegedly important stubs. Tychocat 08:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not fair... I'm the only keep proponent and I just added a little something to Rights of Non Muslims in Islamic State (book) and am looking through Vali Nasr's book on Mawdudi to see if he references any of the works. :O gren グレン 08:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm really happy that you are, and I hope others who are also content experts here will follow your example in, editing the articles to seek to assert notability. For me this is the real purpose of AfD on an article that is nominated as non notable. Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lack of expansion is not a reason to delete. The author, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, is said to be one of the most important Muslim theologians of the 20th Century; thus surely all his published works are notable. In the same way we would not delete a more minor, less known word by, say, Ayn Rand, we should not delete this article. Batmanand | Talk 09:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The books are referred to in the article on the theologian, thus deleting their empty articles will not be a loss, exactly. A far better thing to happen would be for those who are content experts to expand them, thus creating a true win. Fiddle Faddle 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I see this afd as a good faith effort to improve wikipedia, but just as gren, i dont agree with its conclusion. if one reads Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, it will be evident why this books are not expanded at a optimum. Deleting the articles will not solve the issues addresed in the provided link. Give it time, give it 10 years time if necesary, what harm does it make? --Striver 10:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I thank you for the acknowledgement of good faith. It is good faith; I believe in the continuous and never ending improvement of wikipedia. Even so, the creation of stubs is not a substitute for the creation of articles. If one cannot create an article that is sufficient to be at the very least a valid stub then one should not create the article at all. A sub-stub simply fools the reader into believing that something is present when it is not. This devalues wikipedia as a whole. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It would be much better to add content to the author's article, which would give it context. Choalbaton 20:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment IMO, stubs for books are not bad things as long as they refer to notable books. I am not qualified to assess notability of these books, but if notability can be asserted, I personally don't believe there's grounds to delete a book stub. (Neutral) --DaveG12345 21:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. At the very least, it should be Merged with the author's page.--AeomMai 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per nom. no substance here. book is already mentioned in author article. if we accept this article as a precedent that would add tens of thousands of hollow stubs for all the publications every notable author has written. speedy delete all the others reffed above too. Joan-of-arc 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above.--Omartoor 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have now withdrawn 2 of the articles fomr the nomination because I see sufficient assertion of notability. If I am online and see th eothers com eup to standard I will withdraw each of the individually. If not then I would hate this overall nomination to close without an inspection to see whether the others have been brought up to standard. Fiddle Faddle 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

i made a effort to track the book covers for the rest of the books, but could not find them. As i said, this is since its harder to find this things online in enligsh, maybe a Arab speaker could google them. Anyhow, i feel i have done my share, i have saved the articles that i created. Regarding the other books, i advocate the solution that maximizes the chances of information beeing add: To keep the articles. Their notability is not disputed, only their not having a big enough article. An they are not going to get any bigger unless given the oportunity. --Striver 17:29, 30 June 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.