Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Mouftinoun


 * 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 merge and redirect. Consensus is that this information belongs on Wikipedia, but that currently it does not have sufficient notability to merit a stand-alone article. It is being merged into International reaction to Fitna. It will also be mentioned, with a wikilink, in Arab European League. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Mouftinoun

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No third-party reliable sources in English about this film made in response to Fitna. A google news search for Mouftinoun (as opposed to a google web search) gets no hits in English. The only citations are from the Arab European League, the organisation that produced the film. No opposition to re-creation if reliable third-party sources come along. Andjam (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Arab European League. ( Hypnosadist )  14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Arab European League. Luk  suh  16:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Arab European League. -- Quartermaster (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - this contra-film is relevant in the Fitna film soap. See also the Dutch Google News. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your recommendation is probably more relevant to the Dutch language wikipedia than the English language wikipedia (which is the venue for the article in question). -- Quartermaster (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is false, because all Wikipedias are language editions and not country editions. In other words; all Wikipedias should be international oriented, whatever language they are in. Please read the rules and regulations. --Jeroenvrp (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how my comment could be construed as "false" when all it did was point out that using Dutch language sources for this article might be more relevant in the dutch language (Nederlands) wikipedia. Interestingly, when I search the Nederlands wikipedia for Al Mouftinoun there is no wikipedia article there on this film. I'm leery of independently mining of external (non-wikipedia) sources from different languages when there are no corresponding articles in the wikipedia of the source's language. I'm not against that, but think it should generally be avoided, mostly because if the primary users of a specific language wikipedia are the native speakers, it makes it hard for them to analyze sources they may not be capable of understanding. That being said, I have myself cited foreign language sources when relevant and applicable (e.g., see Francesco Bentivegna), but I would prefer english language sources for english language articles (and Nederlands language sources for Nederlands language articles) so that the majority of users can more readily join in the communal editing process. Don't construe my comment as being "against" your recommendation (note: I am in favor of Merge rather than Delete) or that I am an "English only" advocate - I am not. But if the ONLY sources for keeping this as an independent article are either from the producers themselves, or a single Dutch article, I don't see that as compelling support for an independent article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything against articles on films from the country Holland. But it'd be preferable to have reliable sources that are written in the English language. Andjam (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of real reliable sources that are about this film (as opposed to mere news items which just mention it). Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - No reasons for doing otherwise. Randomly clicked Bombay_Flying_Club does not have any references, this one does. In my opinion censorship is biggest reason for deletion of this page. 116.206.24.47 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still plugging for Merge which appears to be the early consensus (that can change). Note that only one Delete has been proposed so far. We're not saying that mention of this film should be erased, just saying it's not notable enough (yet) for retaining as a stand alone article. - Quartermaster (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Preferably Merge into Reaction to Fitna and/or Arab European League. Failing that, Weak Keep. This film does, just barely, seem to be notable (judging from the existence of the Dutch-language news reports), but I don't think it needs its own article, and should be merged into one or both of those articles. Terraxos (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to be a footnote in the whole to-do of International reaction to Fitna, so a merge there (if there is anything really mergeable) would be acceptable. But on it's own it's hardly notable, I don't think. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2008 (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.