Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Fun

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Fun

Article is insultive, POV/Propoganda based and not informative. Unsalvagable.

• Delete Cat ^chi? 08:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stereotek 10:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Davenbelle 10:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of software packages have Wikipedia articles, and this one seems to be noteable. If the article doesn't present a neutral point of view (which it appears to be doing), add the appropriate tag or edit the article. Martg76 12:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is notable. Agree it seems POV, ask for cleanup/review instead. Qwghlm 13:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Examples included "Mustafa Kemal, the hater of Islam, forbade the use of Arabic in Turkey, banned the hijab and closed down the Aya Sofya Mosque in Istanbul. Which is it?" and "Ignoring the hand over agreement, the Christians turned the beautiful Mosque of Córdoba, in Muslim Spain, into a Cathedral (1238). Which one is it??" is not a pov? Cat ^chi? 15:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. The "Islamic Fun" games themselves can love Islam and hate Christianity as much as they want. Saying the game has a pro-Islam bias does not cause such a bias in the article itself. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, I'll make an analogy: the article on Adolf Hitler can safely say Hitler hated Jews without immediately becoming an anti-Semitistically biased article. — JIP | Talk 15:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So it is factual that "Mustafa Kemal is a hater of Islam", etc... etc... The misguided person is using a "game" to promote his views in the CD, 100% propoganda, not wiki material. Cat ^chi? 22:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, we're not actually stating those views, we're just quoting the game and illustrating the source of controversy. The same way we can quote Karl Marx as saying "Religion...is the opium of the people" without actually promoting that viewpoint. The article makes clear that it is the game makers and not Wikipedia that is supporting these opinions. Removing POV isn't a process of removing all statements of opinion, but stating who believes what without actually saying whether or not that belief is justified. Keep since the article seems to be encyclopedic. — Ливай | ☺ 01:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable to me. DaveTheRed 23:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. N-Man 23:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very bad package of computer games, but it seems to be notable to me. Carioca 23:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment—I'd never heard of this game until now. Is it really receiving a lot of negative press, or just a couple scattered reviews? If the latter, it's not notable and there's no reason to keep it. Psychonaut 13:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable precisely for its controversial content. Wikipedia should not sweep things under the rug. Binadot 18:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.