Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. The question of whether the content should be moved (the main point of the nomination, I think, since the nominator sees the content as a counterpoint to his own wiki-userpage) is always open to discussion at any relevant talk page, where a consensus to do so (or not to do so) may develop at any time. The consensus below reflects the view only the that the content should not be deleted, and gives no opinion on its location. Xoloz 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad

The article used to exist in Matt user-space, just like another article with opposing views exist in my user space (see here). What is Matt reason to move it from its user space to Project Islam space? Well see Matt own wordsWrapping up the issue of Muhammad's image. How can he solved or imposed a solution using a move (without having a concensus)? Hence this page should move back to his own user space (like mines). Btw the article is funny because it use WP:OR stating that because Muhammad cartoon are published by many countries hence WP:UNDUE about Muhammad images does not apply. It nullify multiple references saying depicting Muhammad is a extreme rare tradition^[1][2][3][4], just using this bizarre WP:OR about cartoons. Please delete this page from Project Islam (or move it back to Matt user space). A. L. M. 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: There we go with the 'struggle' again. This is exactly why we need to wrap this image stuff up. We need to stop people from protesting about these images needlessly. I'm going to seek advice on how to wrap this up. Do what you want, the end result will be forming a policy and majority consensus to keep these images and form a policy or guideline to keep these images. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- someone might actually confuse this for policy. BYT 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  comment even with a big fat "This is an essay, not a policy" box at the top? --L^augh! 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Then move it back to Matt user space were it was previously. He should not use words like he has moved to solve the issue once and for all etc. I have NO objection if that exist in his user space like mines. -- A. L. M. 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Given that he has shown that he is attempting to make it a policy, I would find that very inappropriate. A policy should not be kept in user space. --L^augh! 12:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well then so is true with mine logic. Should I also move it out from my user space? Then should I also start saying to other it is to solve the issue once and for all by banning poeple? Like he is saying. I suggest move it back to his user space. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  ALM, if you moved it into project space, others would be able to edit it, even move it to another title. It might wind up saying something very different then you want it to say. Same with Matt57's.Proabivouac 06:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  It has been confused for policy (permalink1, permalink2). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: It's not even a policy, it's a page showing why we cannot allow the images to be removed, using existing policies. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean it's not appropriate for wikipedia --L^augh! 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - it is, however, utterly one-sided in the presentation of its views- instead of objectively noting the good-faith, policy based arguments used by editors of all sides. that doesn't mean it needs to be deleted, it just means that it needs to be rewritten. ITAQALLAH 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This move greatly facilitates that, if that's what you want to do. ALM's page and its talk page are currently under ALM's control, as was protested in its MfD, because they are in userspace (bad reason, but there you have it.) Matt57's now isn't. Maybe the right solution is to back the move, than propose a merger of ALM's page as a POV fork.Proabivouac 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per L. -- Karl Meier 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I vote for deleting this article. Very irritating how a collection of ideas can be made into a guideline. I wrote a couple of comments in the article, but then realized there is a link and reverted. Unflavoured 06:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Again from the same template, This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s).. Basically, you're assuming that nobody is going to actually read the page- which makes your point moot --L^augh! 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Policies or essays should have consensus amongst the fellow editors. This particular essay seems to be one editors set of ideas. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 10:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  Taken from CAT:E (which is linked to on the template) This category contains essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These do not have policy or guideline status, and most are the opinion of one or two users. Nevertheless, many contain useful insights, and at least some of them are worth reading.. and from the template on the page itself it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s).. Anyone claiming that an essay should not be allowed is ignoring many many old essays, and the template at the top of the page. If WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT, that's fine, but at least be honest enough to say that instead of hiding behind the guise of essays being inappropriate. --L^augh! 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't bode well when essays are cited as policy (permalink1, permalink2). I'm not sure whether an essay would be all that useful without a clear consensus as there is no obligation on an editor to follow its recommendations. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• [at that before you speak please]. That is NOT an essay according to Matt. He has made this page to enforce bans on others. also see the messages he leaves about this page objectives on Muhammad and Kaaba talk pages [1]. He wishes to enforce a solution. --- A. L. M. 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  Moreover, how good is an essay as a guideline if people don't agree with its content?, its not a question of me or any other editor liking it or not, its a question of how valid it is? If we have consensus on it then the chance of anyone disputing it is less and it would be valid even to quote as a possible guideline in a conflict. But if this doesn't serve this purpose whats the point of having it? Especially in this particular scenario, there are two essays which have contradicting opinions, on what basis do we choose this one over the other? see ALM's essay NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per L. Hut 8.5 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; as L said, "it's a page showing why we cannot allow the images to be removed, using existing policies". Obviously, its problems can easily be mended by editing the page.--Aldux 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but it may be worth changing the page title to indicate that it is one view of a controversial situation. I think Wikipedia would be best served by maintaining two pages at WikiProject Islam, like "Images: Supporting view" and "Images: Opposing view", and then provide links to each, from the top section of the other. And of course clearly label both pages as essays and not guidelines. --Elonka 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The question of the use of such images recurs every few months, generally in perfectly good faith by someone not aware of the earlier discussions. It is extremely useful maintaining this page, which presents a comprehensive view of the question.DGG (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The essay is there for anyone to improve, so if you don't agree with the essay make justifiable improvements. Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 00:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I can't see how someone can mystake this for a policy with the "Essay" box on the top of the page, the same as I didn't see anyone mistaking WP:DICK for a policy while it was in Wikipedia. -凶 05:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per L et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I feel that one can clearly tell it's an essay, and it gathers all of the relevant, useful information together on why it should be allowed, backed with Wikipedia policies.  hmwith  talk 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is an essay it says it is an essay, It does a good job of bringign together a set of policy-based argumetns that people might wish to cite as a group in discussions. It doesn't claim to be a policy. No good reason to delete. DES ^(talk) 00:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed while this is an essay, and so should not be expected to command consensus support, it might well be the basis for discussions leading to a guideline clarifing and expanding on existing policy. i might well support such a turn of events. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this seems to summarize the new general consensus for including images after the numerous discussions we have had over images, all of which resulted in keep the images.--Sefringle^Talk 04:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per L. Nominees reasoning does not rise above WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT Dman727 07:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:06, 19 July 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.