Talk:Wikiislam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy Deletion tag

If the person who put that thing up isn't willing to be first in here to talk about it, I fail to see why it ought to be entertained as other than bad-faith.--Mike18xx 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to second tag: As stated previously, the article DOES address the "significance" of the subject - the collection and display of IP addresses is a significant concern for those living in dictatorships where, among other things, apostasy may be punishible by death. This article does not quality for a Speedy Deletion tag under any of the 12 general criteria for speedy deletion, nor the 7 listed article criteria following the general list. An Alexa ranking is not required for notability (be that as it may, I submit that the 37,000+ hits to the main page of Wikiislam constitute reasonable traffic), nor are Alexa collection techniques an accurate gauge. Please observe the last sentence of #7: "Don't delete if you simply don't understand the assertion of importance or significance; delete only if you know that there is none."--Mike18xx 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are also specifically not supposed to remove the speedy tag from articles you have created yourself. You protest speedy deletion by placing the Hangon tag, and starting discussions here. You did the latter, but not the former. I have placed the hangon tag for you. You need to stop editwarring over removing a tag that you should not be removing in the first place. The hangon tag will alert the next admin who comes across this that there is a dispute in progress, here on the tag page. It will then be up to them to judge your arguments. But if you continue to remove the speedy tag you are going to be blocked very quickly. - TexasAndroid 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • the website is unremarkable. there is no indication of how/why the subject is notable or significant (which it doesn't appear to be). ITAQALLAH 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because you CLAIM it isn't notable or significant doesn't mean that it actually isn't notable or significant, "Itaqallah". (Would it be presumptuously of me to guess, based upon you're user name, that you're not going to be impartial?) New links added to references in published literature.--Mike18xx 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiIslam is notable because it is the only site where apostates or potential apostates from Islam can participate in a mediawiki project without having their IP addresses logged -- which naturally could have lethal consequences if they are posting from nations where apostasy is punishable by death.--Mike18xx 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd certainly disagree with the idea that Wikiislam is unremarkable. It is comprehensive and widely known, often without reference to its host. It appears to be growing quite significantly, and supports innovative and widely debated content. At its present state, it constitutes the worth of an artical, and continues to justify that worth with its apparant expanding audience.

[edit] Merger/Redirect/Etc.

DISAPPROVE. I am invoking the Mountain Dew principle. (Mountain Dew is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pepsi, Inc., yet has its own Wikipedia page. Mountain Dew is a soft-drink, and therefore arguably less "notable" (the protests of orthodontists notwithstanding) in its own stand-alone right than a popular webpage hosted by a larger entity and concerning weighty issues.) <sarcasm>If the goal of some at Wikipedia is to try to merge as many Islam-critical articles into as small a subset as possible, I hereby propose that all Islamic nations on Earth be merged into one superstate called The Greater Universal Sharia Caliphate (and the fifty or so individual constituant votes at the U.N. be rescinded until such time as all fifty states of the United States are also given seperate votes).</sarcasm>--Mike18xx 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The articles subject is notable in itself, and deserve it's own article. -- Karl Meier 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Wikiislam constitutes enough to be considered a separate entity. It is significantly comprehensive, and has been linked by many external sites in exclusive reference. It is deserving of an independant artical.


This whole FFI issue is such a joke i feel. I mean how naive can peolpe be. The article has links that again like FFI point to either self links or to some blogs and forumn. And thats too like 1 or 2 or 3. merge with FFI is my vote.Z2qc1

  • support. Wikiislam is not notable enough for its own article at the current time.--Sefringle 06:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)