Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Jew

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 keep, possibly rename. Tomer^talk 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim Jew

Muslim Jew (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete per WP:NEO. This article reads like an ad for Jews for Allah and the content is a joke with a small list of historical conversions, some of which are debatable as they where possibly forced. WP:FORK of a good few other articles. frummer 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. frummer 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename Conversion from Judaism to Islam and trim out the "ad" stuff. - crz crztalk 15:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • that article wouldn't survive an AFD either. frummer 15:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • OK. We'll see. - crz crztalk 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do you think that? It wouldn't be for being unverifiable. It's discussed on page 197 of ISBN 0028642333, and there's some interesting discussion of the problems that it caused for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 1620s and 1630s on pages 302–303 of ISBN 1860643574. Uncle G 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Think about the comparable viability and noteworthiness of analogous articles Conversion from Shintoism to Judaism, Conversion from Animism to Cao Dai, Conversion from Confuscianism to Christianity or even Conversion from Shintoism to Christianity...the latter two are far more common than Conversion from Judaism to Islam ever was or, r"l, ever will be... Tomer^talk 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but there's so much notable historical beef between J and I. Shabsi Tzvi alone is reason enough to keep this. Shintoism to Baha'i is somehow less exciting. - crz crztalk 16:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Those other potential articles are irrelevant. They are not reasons that the article at hand with the title given would not survive AFD. Thinking that they are relevant is making the error of thinking that we are somehow required to provide a complete set of articles, instead of discussing the subjects that the sources discuss. You are making one of the most common errors made in AFD discussions. "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument. Uncle G 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • There is already List of Muslim converts and Category:Converts to Islam which are fine. IZAK 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No, Unc, you're completely failing to understand the point. Let me make it quite plain to you: Crz's proposed name is ridiculous. Not only does the article have nothing to do with conversion from Judaism to Islam (the process for which is unexcitingly identical to the process for converstion from any other religion to Islam), the proposed namechange still doesn't deal with the problems inherent in the article itself. You'll notice, I'm just commenting here, I haven't bothered to vote...I'm in complete agreement that what we should be discussing is more appropriate names for the article. I think the List of Muslim converts IZAK points out below covers the topic quite well, but if there's some pathological attachment to keeping this unremarkable article, it should really be at Jewish converts to Islam...although I would propose that a better way of handling such a classification fetish would be by creating instead Category:Jewish converts to Islam as a subcat of Category:Converts to Islam, and the remarkably little independently noteworthy information contained [i.e., that which isn't more appropriately included in other articles] can be put in as heading text for that category. Tomer^talk 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
          • For the record, if I had been trying to propose good article names, a far more worthwhile and noteworthy article than any proposal here, would be Gnostic converts to Christianity. Tomer^talk 23:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Tomer: I had no idea you were my long-lost nephew. Well, I shoulda known, we're a brainy family...IZAK 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and possibly rename per crz. Seems a very reasonable article, not sure why it's shown up here? Perhaps just needs a better title. Akihabara 15:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename per crz. If you have a problem with perceived POV in the article, re-write it neutrally. Otto4711 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is. Excellent article, although short. I hope someone can do some research and improve it. --Gabi S. 15:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This has been nominated before; this should have been mentioned in the nomination [1]. Akihabara 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rename and source. I'm adding {{fact}} to some of the more bold assertions in this article. Tarinth 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it's factual and true. Direct parallel to Jewish Christians. IZAK 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  A great example of yet another completely pointless article. Tomer^talk 23:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• merge to Islam and Judaism adding a section on Jewish conversion. As it stand it lacks context. Jon513 22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty good article. Rename if you want to. --- RockMFR 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Amoruso 10:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep and rename "Muslim Jew is not a suitable name because it is totally uninformative, leaving it unclear whether it means an attempt at dual identity, or conversion in either one direction or the other. Jewish converts to Islam is specific. There is content, the content is notable, what more can be wanted? Even for those who think people shouldn't be doing this, it is still notable. DGG 06:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, rename if needed. --Rayis 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, rename to better title. This is an informative article. Park3r 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a fact.--Tearfate 07:52, 1 February 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.