Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misconceptions about the Shi'a 2

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconceptions about the Shi'a

  • Delete or Merge this article already had an afd on Feb. 9 05 with the result to merge into the Shi'a Islam article. The closing administrator of the afd put "I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article" just to put a merge tag and wait for someone who knows how to merge articles to merge it into Shi'a Islam (See here for previous Afd). Some contributors to the article however keep on consistantly taking out these merge tags however to try and save the article (See the Page history). So, since the revert war has been going on for some time now, I figured I'd just put up another afd in the article because just leaving the merge tag would result in the tag being taken off. With regards to why this article should be deleted, it is essentially a fork article which is enough to warrant deletion and in addition is not very well written. I would however, naturally settle for what the administrator decided in the last afd to merge this article into Shi'a Islam. Jersey Devil 11:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant POV essay with POV title, no hope of making this NPOV or encyclopedic. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • weak delete not really encyclopedic. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete per User:Jersey Devil. — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per previous AfD. If nobody knows how to do that (I certainly don't) then just leave it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • keep this is far to much text for the main Shi'a article, the Shi'a article is about what Shi'a is, not about what shi'a is not. The missconseptions are real and need to be explained per Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS. The misconceptions about HIV and AIDS article is better, and this one can be also. But not being perfect is not a reason to delete it, its a reason to improve it. Again, the Shi'a article is to large as it is, and its not about what Shi'a is not, in the same way that Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS should not be merged into HIV. --Striver 23:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, i invite people to actualy do a count of the votes on the previous afd, in no way was there any concensus for merge that time. --Striver 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless this can be de-POVed. Good luck! BTW, seems to be well-sourced. Obviously Striver is able to cite sources when he wants - there's no excuse for future articles to be unsourced. Denni ☯ 01:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didnt creat this. I just touched it. I mean, i touched its talk page. --Striver 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This is the third time we are voting on this page without the people proposing for its deletion actually contributing to anything in the article, or even discussing anything about the article. Nor are they involved in the Shia article. In the previous AfDs, there was no consensus to merge or delete. This vote is therefore an attempt to yet again delete a Shia article for partisan POV reasons. And that, is pretty sad.--Zereshk 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep.--Zereshk 06:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. Note to Striver - AfD is not a vote. Proto||type 12:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Jersey Devils Crusade is a breach of policy.--Irishpunktom\talk 21:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kirbytime 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Zain 02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Shabih
  • Keep. Did we not vote on this 2 weeks ago?--Nightryder84 05:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently biased soapbox essay, says it right in the title. Does WP:NPOV still apply? "My religion is great, I'll now explain how others who disagree are all wrong." If there are encyclopedic facts merge those to a non-partisan page. Weregerbil 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Irishpunktom. And t looks well-sourced to me. SouthernComfort 02:44, 25 March 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.