Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Maida 51 case


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Al Maida 51 case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The user who made it has a bias POV on Joko Widodo and his former deputy Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, as he made clear in this Wikiquote edit. See also user's history on enwiki and idwiki. Flix11 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment., is there a corresponding article on Indonesian Wikipedia?--Darwinek (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No there is not. If there is, it is probably made by the same user. Flix11 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete after a careful consideration. There are several issues with the article, bias and POV being the chief issue here. The fact that the article is included in "anti-Islam sentiment" category, speaks for itself. Long story short, the story is already covered in a better way in the Ahok and November 2016 Jakarta protests articles.--Darwinek (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously Keep When you think that only because a Wikiquote edit from comment of Jusuf Kalla before chosen as Widodo's Vice President in 2014 that I have bias POV, then I want to ask you, who made the offensive statement against Widodo? I or Jusuf Kalla, is that true that the comment came from Jusuf Kalla? Yes, I even put a video link as the reliable source. Thus I don't think this a POV because the truth that you cannot make everyone talks positive about you, there will always be dislikes or something like that against you, such as Jusuf Kalla who raised doubt about Widodo before the 2014 election while he eventually became his vice president.


 * Furthermore, do not you know about the principles of deletion policy:


 * Verifiability (You can check to the references) No original research (my edit based on reliable sources) No Advertisement (Clearly not an advertisement) no Vanity (mass media covered it up) No Hoax (based on factual information on news)


 * Notability (of course this case is notable since the case closely related with Ahok's track record and led to two large gatherings on 4 November and 2 December 2016, moreover, you could find a lot of information on internet (google) about this case Find the sources. If the content in "Al Maida 51 case" article is shorter than other two article (Ahok and 4 November article) do you mind to make it better in a better way (e.g. not deleting)?)


 * If you are trying to delete a "non-eligible article to be deleted" in Wikipedia according to the principles, I guess that you do not have any good faith to another editor and only trying to despise article of another editor instead of helping to improve it. Qzxv5 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is full of one sided-opinion, bias, pushing POV with seemingly bigoted-sentiments directed against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, which might led to defamatory content problem. Possible conflict of interest, unfair and partial.  Gunkarta  talk 13:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Response As for me, Al Maida 51 case is the notable event in Indonesia which shaped the Religious segregration among inter-religious community nowadays. If you objected about bias, controversial issue, etc. Any good-faith Wikipedian would use appropriate template on the top of article while trying to improve and find the solution in talk page.When you are accusing me about one-sided opinion, at the same time you are neglecting various references from various news sources that clearly supporting my edit and I think anyone could give contibution to present two sided POV (including you, but would you?)When you talking about bigoted-sentiments and defamatory content directed against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, aren't you considering that his slanderous accusation against the Quranic verse is an intolerance remark to the teaching of another religion and a subjective "bigoted-sentiments" and "serious defamation" against the Islamic Holy Scripture? or how should a convicted criminal against sacred thing be treated normally by the public? treated negatively or positively? thus surely normal when media coverage and public highly condemn his fatal mistakeIn every action, there is always the re-action, you reap what you sow, If he did good thing he would receive good thing also and if he expressed a negative statement he would receive negative statement also.. That's law of the nature. At last, this article do not eligible for deletion policy principles Qzxv5 (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading your response really feels like being in the midst of fundamentalist demonstration of Islamic Defenders Front.--Darwinek (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for NPOV or alternatively stubify. The subject passes WP:SIGCOV. AFD should not have been the first stop here. I notice there was no talk page discussion or tags done. Those should have been the first place to go to resolve this issue.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Clear breach of WP:NPOV, and is in any case covered in the Ahok article and in some depth in the November 2016 Jakarta protests article. Davidelit (Talk) 09:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Rather than deleting articles which you not like.  Fix the article.   Post rebuttals.  Use the Talk Page.  Be constructive.  This is Wikipedia, not some personal webpage.Koreangauteng (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Response: Hi. It's not a case of "not liking the article", and rebuttals would not make it notable. Wikipedia does not have an Why Trump is wonderful article, and if it did, adding rebuttals still wouldn't make it right. In any case, the content is covered in November 2016 Jakarta protests Davidelit (Talk) 03:48, 1 December 2019 (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.