Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Islam:SIIEG

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 11 to keep, 15 to delete (including the nominator), and 1 to merge. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG

Following the precedence expresed in [1] and [2]. Delete All activity can be resolved in talk pages. (unsigned VFD by User:Striver.)

• SPEEDY KEEP Striver is involved in WP:POINT Klonimus 05:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Karl Meier 07:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since the project seems to me to serve a useful purpose. DavidConrad 07:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, Strong Keep, the most transparently WP:POINT VfD I've seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. Babajobu 11:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - The project is about maintaining Wikipedia ideals like NPOV. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - seeks to restrict editing of Islam-related articles to an elitist group. Seems contrary to Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset #13 'Foundation Issues'- one of which is that anyone can edit any article on WP Cynical 13:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the originator of this page invited others to participate who have knowledge even though they might tend to favor a particular POV. In fact, one of those people has commented extensively on the talk page. --Noitall 20:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This WikiProject does not seek to restrict editing of Islam-related article to any particular group. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, and this WikiProject can neither prevent that nor seeks to prevent that. --Zeno of Elea 23:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does. Here's their first rule

SIIEG members should:

1. be adequately familiar with one or more subjects related to Islam

Elitism. Plain and simple. --Cynical 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to guidelines for SIIEG membership. That is not an attempt to prevent anyone else from editing Islam-related articles. Babajobu 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

As Babajobu has pointed out, you are referring to SIIEG membership guidelines, you are not referring to guidelines on who can edit Wikipedia Islam-related articles. In any case, anyone can join SIIEG and membership is only revoked if the user is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia by administrators. The guideline that you refer to only serves the purpose of attracting Wikipedia editors who have enough famaliarity with the subject. We would like to have members who are well versed in Islamic literature because this is a requirement for successfully opposing the apologetic POV of certain Islam series articles. --Zeno of Elea 21:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Zeno's assertions seem reasonable. Keep. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Given that: the name of this project is mildly offensive and in bad faith (SIIEG pronounced "siege"! Who are we at siege against?); that it's goals should be the goals of all Wikipedians; that some of it's own membership seem to have been breached it's own mission statement and policies without similarly being admonished by the SIIEG membership; that it seems to single out a particular group of editors (e.g. liberal Muslims) for criticism in bad faith, based purely on their private religious and political beliefs; and that otherwise we already have Wikipedia Project: Islam for precisely this reason. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep In my short time here, I've been following the various debates on Islam-related articles, and I think I have a fairly neutral view of the situation. As far as I can tell both sides of this "debate" have bad-egg editors violating a number of Wikipedia policies, and both sides have reasonable and fair (if principled) editors. I think to sort this whole thing out the members of the latter group need to seek each other out across the aisle and make a real effort to reach some kind of consensus with each other. Otherwise it'll be more of the same edit-warring, personal attacks, etc. I could see SIIEG as being a means to either end. Given that the whole VFD system seems to be in a period of turmoil, I'd recommend keeping it for now, but bringing it back for deletion if it looses sight of it's (so far) reasonable and fair approach. byped 17:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe that this is a good faith effort. --Zeno of Elea 00:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Noitall 00:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as their edits are in good faith. —thames 16:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Axon. JamesBurns 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV-encouraging magnet. Wholly inappropriate. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • For your information, Ril: POV magnet refers to an article with a disputable title. SIIEG is no article but open for all people, so no POV magnet. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I'm not particularly happy with such projects (qv earlier debates on User:FACTS, for instance) since they only increase factionalism. However, this issue is broader than the existence of this page, and it may be something that requires broader community input, or ArbCom proceedings, or something like the Content Review mentioned in the RFAr/RFC. Radiant_>|< 15:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment From an outsider standpoint, this project does seem well intentioned, but I don't understand why this can't be done within the main Wikiproject group. Also, the acronym might cause some animosity. Karmafist 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As a member of SIIEG, I'll agree that our acronym, or at least the pronunciation, may not be advisable. I personally don't feel under siege by anyone. But the project is legit. Babajobu 17:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The members whose names I recognise are strongly PoV-pushing Islamophobes. Deleting this won't stop the unfortunate effect that they're having on Wikipedia, but it will at least send a message. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  Please review WP:NPA and WP:POINT --Zeno of Elea 11:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  I have, have you? First, I didn't personally attack anyone (largely because I didn't specify any prson of group of people); secondly, deleting this page is not going to disrupt Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was first unsure about this. While there are certain users such as Germen whom you can compromise/discuss things with, most of the members of this group are serial reverters who add false information to many articles.Heraclius 03:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam; I can't see a legitimate reason to differentiate the two- we shouldn't have different Wikiprojects for different POVs on the same topic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is not an "Islamic organization", or at least it shouldn't be- it's a WikiProject open to all just like any other.--Pharos 07:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "we shouldn't have different Wikiprojects for different POVs on the same topic." Why, exactly? Is this an existing Wikipedia policy? If not, then it is clearly not an issue related only to this page and VfD is therefore not the proper channel for such policy decision making. --Zeno of Elea 11:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe that if this project has no strong POV as they say then it falls within WikiProject Islam and if it has a strong POV then it should deleted for that reason. gren グレン 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto Gren. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reluctantly. I see no purpose served by keeping both this and Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. They're identical in scope. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SIIEG is already a subproject of the Islam main project. SIIEG likes to balance non-Sunni and Shi'a islam as well as islam-directed critics in order to obtain a higher informational value of Wikipedia. So the scope is different. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 14:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont like seeing Shia Islam being used as an excuse for promoting anti Islamic agendas. Specialy not when they are called "Siege". Lets be honest, who is the one under siege, is it Iraq or USA? --Striver 14:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The acronym of the project is a coincidence, it doesnt mean anything. --Zeno of Elea 15:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, so the link to siege is a coincidence and means nothing? Ill remeber to include that in the Coincidence theory article. --Striver 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, exactly. --Zeno of Elea 17:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Ok, so if the acronym ended as SIIEG, and hade nothing to do with the word "siege", why do we find this quote on the artilce?

The acronym SIIEG (pronounced "siege") stands for the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. SIIEG is a writers' guild specifically intended for Wikipedia editors of Wikipedia information relating to Islam.

• • All WikiProjects are required to comply with NPOV. There is no need for a WikiProject to "balance" one with the same avowed aims. Factionalism isn't sensible. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This VfD has been in progress for 7 days now, exceeding the 5 day lag time for VfD. This VfD should therefore be considered as concluded, and should be moved to the holding area at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old, and the VfD tag removed from the project page. A rough consensus has been not reached by any measure, therefore deletion cannot be carried out. --Zeno of Elea 17:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This VfD is a transclusion on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_1, which has already been moved to Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Old. It will be closed soon, but further votes are permitted meanwhile. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete. Proto t c 10:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems fair to read this wikiproject as a POV fork. under WP:IAR though, it can be summed up as determinental to wikipedia community spirit, get rid of it.--Tznkai 18:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep. community spirit does not mean banning subcommunities.mikka (t) 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  Did anyone say that it did? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  I was referring to the vote just above. A subcommunity has rights to exist and has rights to its POV, as long as it does not obstruct the NPOV of articles. An opposite position is arm twisting and "detrimental to community spirit" indeed. mikka (t) 22:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Quasipalm 14:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete __earth 16:38, August 9, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.