Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim view of Ali

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, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslim view of Ali

• Delete aside from the fact that the article is a content fork, it is also mainly a long list of quotes from "non-Muslims" about Ali. This violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information of which number 2 specifically states:

"Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons. If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." Jersey Devil 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per nom. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jersey Devil. MCB 06:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The reasons given in the nomination do not apply. This is not a content fork but an article spinout. The information given here is not "loosely associated" but specifically targeted and on topic. It is in the nature of the topic that quotations are an appropriate form for bringing the information across. The article is clearly and definitely not a "list" or "repository" of quotations". I am somewhat amazed by the inability of the nominator to appreciate this. I see no other reasons for deletion either: The article is written from a strictly neutral point of view and is better sourced than most articles. Lambiam^Talk 10:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, the article is basically a list of quotations. Anyone who sees the article can see that.--Jersey Devil 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So would you then also argue for deletion of such articles as, for example, Judaism's view of Jesus, which also mainly consist of direct and indirect quotations? If the complaint is that this article is badly written, I concur. Only, that is not a ground for deletion. Lambiam^Talk 09:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Nominated in bad faith as part of Jersey Devils long running crusade against Striver. Needs expansion, but not deletion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per lambiam. Blink484 22:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the above user's first edit was on April 12, 2006. [1]--Jersey Devil 23:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lambiam and Irishpunktom. --Striver 00:38, 14 April 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.