Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace(third nomination)
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 no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Religion of Peace
Clear POV fork. This article is poorly sourced, violates WP:NEO, and is very POV. It borders on propaganda, and could not be re-written in a neutral manner due to the title. Sefringle 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to contemporary socio-political catch-phrases. All articles of this nature must be deleted regardless of POV.Proabivouac 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure what's POV about this article - it seems to be a fair treatment of the topic, describing the phrase's origins and subsequent abuses. Imban 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, POV-fork. Hornplease 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure if it's a POV-fork, but it doesn't appear notable. --RaiderAspect 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Looks notable, refs aren't perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abeg92 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
- Delete Original research and POV at that. Mangoe 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Incorrect non neutral original research. "Islam" translates as "surrender" (to the will of god), and certainly not to "religion of peace" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; the political meme is already too widespread to be ignored here, and the article describes both sides of it - the true religion of peace and the ironical use. I found more than 1,000,000 Google hits on "religion of peace" islam and there are books with this title (I have easily found three: Religion of Peace?: Islam's War Against the World by Gregory M. Davis, Islam: Religion of Peace and Justice by Muhammad Nawaz, and Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't by Robert Spencer; see [1], [2] and [3]). Of course the article is a good place for original research, edit wars and POV pushing, but it is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment what about Never forget, another common neologism. This is just way too subjective and bias. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, which says Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources should be deleted--Sefringle 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have it just backed by three printed sources, two from the "ironical" side and one from the "normal" side. Therefore your point based on WP:DEL is not valid here. And "never forget" has no comparable sources by now. Therefore this comparison is not valid here in my opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The claim about Islam as religion of peace is very common (wrong or right - does not matter). If there is an overlap with over articles, this should be corrected rather than entire article deleted.Biophys 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The nom says the article "could not be re-written in a neutral manner due to the title." That would be true if the article were about Islam, but it's about a particular phrase, and it describes the different political aspects of the use of the phrase. It's like Poverty pimp, which survived AfD. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO. Not much more needs to be said, really. POV is a moot point. 128.226.230.60 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment A bit more needs to be said, because WP:NEO states "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." and we have at least four reliable sources here - three books and the US President GW Bush. And POV is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I think the operating word is "about". AFAICS the sources aren't about the term, they just use the term. I'm not convinced that a relatively uncommon political term deserves coverage. I mean it's not exactly on the level of Evil Empire or Axis of Evil is it. --RaiderAspect 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment At least, all the three mentioned book titles clearly suppose that "religion of peace" means "Islam"; and it is equally clear that the term is used by both sides, Moslems and opponents of Islam. Therefore I do not believe that we push original research if we include the term here. It is already not a classical neologism, unclear and known only to a limited circle of net users.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the operating word is "about". AFAICS the sources aren't about the term, they just use the term. I'm not convinced that a relatively uncommon political term deserves coverage. I mean it's not exactly on the level of Evil Empire or Axis of Evil is it. --RaiderAspect 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment A bit more needs to be said, because WP:NEO states "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." and we have at least four reliable sources here - three books and the US President GW Bush. And POV is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Ioannes Pragensis & JamesMLane --Webkami 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Cleanup and remove POV. The term is fairly common.[4][5]. utcursch | talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Important article on a concept that is widely used in political discourse. --JJay 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:31, 5 May 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.
