Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam by country

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The result was nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam by country

Islam by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete or Move to Wikisource. Simply a list of statistics with barely any context thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Note that WP:NOT states: "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic."--Strothra 19:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Note I've gone ahead and removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policy's talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep are we also going to remove the Buddhism by country, Hinduism by country, Christianity by country, etc, articles? These are useful encyclopedic lists. IP198 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Improve. I have been away from Wikipedia for a long time, so please excuse me if I am ignorant of newer changes in policy. I took a long look at the article in question. There are lots of numbers associated with countries, and very little text. My first response was to can it. When I reluctantly went to the discussion page, I wasn't suprised to see it was HUGE. I couldn't read it all, and chose to only look at the last 1/3 or so of the posts. There are complaints about numbers not adding up, and people ignoring the talk page altogether. Again my reaction is to X it. But there does seem to be a few people trying to pull everyone together. I say we keep it, threaten them with deletion, and tell them they have to IMPROVE their page or we gonna X it for sure. (Myhorses 19:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Keep Good Lord (or Allah Akbar)! Is there someone who thinks that there's a ban on including statistics in an encyclopedia article? Good luck in college. Mandsford 19:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. (Also, it's "Allahu Akbar" not "Allah.") --Strothra 20:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it seems everyone else disagrees. There are plenty of great articles in wikipedia that are based upon numbers and lists. Are you going to waste everyone's time by putting them all up for deletion.Vexorg 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful encyclopedic list, NOT#STATS does not apply, it is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" as said above. Hello32020 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Islam and the demographics of religions. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No one ever said that was the part of the policy that meant to be applied. Rather, I specifically pointed to the part of the policy about articles that are "primarily comprised of statistical data." --Strothra 20:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [1], [2] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Help I am very much in favor of keeping this article. It is a handy source to have. I orginally got involved with this project becasue I wanted to find some reliable info. One good thing about the editors involved, is that they are highly motivated by their interest in the project. Sadly, these good intentioned people (for some reason or other) ignore the Discussion all together, and then make sweeping unilateral changes, throwing the page into utter chaos. Currently, lots of the info is unsourced and the figures can't be reconciled. Keep the article and advise this community what consensus is and how we achieve it. (TS Brumwell 00:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - personally I think this is a ridiculous waste of time putting this and the Christianity by country articles up for deletion. Nobody has opted for deletion on either of them.Vexorg 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

  • If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:34, 3 September 2007 (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.