Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Answering-Islam.org


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering-Islam.org

 * — (View AfD)

That is a hate-website against Islam. We have no idea who is running that website see []. The website is created for a reason to write against Islam and mix lies with other things to present their points. According to my understanding they have failed to meet WP:WEB, all the three points, you can check yourself. Should we create Answering-christianity.org article too. Obviously not, not at all. Encylopidia is not places for such things. Hence that page should also be deleted. Encylopidia should not be used to increase the number of hits on some hate-website. ALM 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but realize that with all your "hate website" stuff, you're going to get lots of reflexive keeps. -Amarkov blahedits 15:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. I count, like, one reflexive keep so far and plenty of deletes. LOL. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have heard of this website off-Wiki, and it is notable. Just because it is highly critical of Islam does not make it a hate website, and in any case if a hate website is notable there is an article on it on Wikipedia. See Godhatesfags.com. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think it meets WP:WEB all three points? Or not ? I have heard about many thing but we do not create articles about all of them. Should we? --- ALM 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect to a notable organization. BhaiSaab talk 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable - Ozzykhan 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what the fuss is about. It is a non-notable website as per WP:WEB. The content and subject matter are not an issue. The article's creator/editors are free to write about the website on Criticism of Islam or related topics. The website, currently, is not notable enough to deserve its own article. - Ozzykhan 17:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:WEB. Hearing about it off-Wiki isn't really a reason for inclusion. BhaiSaab talk 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, when I said "heard of" I meant, has been used as a references in several books I have read, including Unveiling Islam, it is used by various evangelicals on religious message boards, and is linked to by hundreds of websites. But meh, it doesn't like Islam, it must be deleted. /sarcasm. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * delete views of the website is irrelevant, notability is the only issue. Delete, unless proof of notability is established.--Striver 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Striver. The contents of the site are irrelevant; the only issue is whether the site itself is so significant as to deserve its own article.  Nothing here convinces me that this is so. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment and weak delete. First of all, I notice that some, but not all, of the users favoring deletion are Muslims or somehow associated with Islam. (Note: I only mention this here because of the potential for a one-sided POV on the side of the deletion-favorers). That being said, so little has been said on the website, and so little defense of its notability has been done, that perhaps we should mention the website as being among the work of Islam's detractors or critics in the Islam and Criticism of Islam articles for now, and create an article when there is more reason to believe in the site's notability. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The article's contents are as follows: "Answering-Islam.org is website which contains the writings of some evangelical Christians who, according to the disclaimer, seek to demonstrate flaws of Islam using biblical arguments.", and the citation for that is Answering-Islam.org itself. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not going to even think of visiting this website from work, so I can't vote either way on this, but I'd recommend that the nominator reword his nomination.  Even if you classify the site as a "hate-website", that has no bearing on its relevance or suitability for a wikipedia article.  Your nomination above is almost hostile.  And to answer your question above, if there were a website called answering-chrsitianity.org and it met any of the criteria on WP:WEB, you would be able to create an article on it, no problem.  --DDG 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipidian 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article fails to assert notability. NeoFreak 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WB:WEB, the article is flawed. --Palestine48 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable, Wikipedia is not a link farm.
 * Also, Comment. I tried to resist the urge of pointing out the absurdity and hypocrisy in attempting to debunk someone else's belief system using only ideas from within the context of your own (competing) belief system, but yeah. Noclip 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above.  ITAQALLAH   21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB - crz crztalk 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It fails WP:WEB. Hate websites can be on Wikipedia if they are notable. Look at Stormfront (website). NeoJustin 21:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:WEB.  TruthSpreader Talk 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete not much citing of the web site from other sites though if someone can find some stuff I'm happy to help build up the article. That aside - I would protect their right to say what they want so if this site is used as a link in other articles then I would keep the links in place BUT the site itself need not yet have its own wikipedia article. I love how they "seek to demonstrate flaws of Islam using biblical arguments." Oh boy - that cracked me up, talk about the Blind leading the blind. Both the Bible and the Quran are more or less fictional works interweaving allegorically interpreted tales from earlier works with historical events and contemporaneous knowledge. I think thats a neutral opinion. Ttiotsw 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, no, but I agree. Arrow740 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Closing admin, if you decide to delete, please indicate if your decision mandates that this site cannot be quoted in any article. The voters here seem to think, and I agree, that the fact that a website cannot have its own article does not mean it cannot be cited elsewhere. Arrow740 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes the site cannot be quoted in articles because it is not a reliable-source. See WP:RS. --- ALM 08:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm for delete but don't you mean WP:RS ? This web site is anti-Islamic and so matches the criteria of Partisan_and_extremist_websites as opposed to say something scientific. This is religion fighting religion i.e. bigot verses bigot not some high-brow scholarly work. Ttiotsw 09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about using it as a source of polemics, not facts. In an article about polemics such as Criticism of Islam the arguments of the critics at AI are very notable. Arrow740 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed but I do not know why Arrow740 cannot understand that fact. --- ALM 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the "and their activities" part of the rule. Arrow740 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NO! The site can ONLY be used in its own article and cannot be use as secondary source in Islam related articles or criticism of Islam article. It is against WP:RS. Find some books, published by good publisher and use them instead. --- ALM 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Primary source for its own arguments. Know the meanings of words before you use them. Arrow740 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * YES! The site can be used, Quoting from WP:RS in the "Non-scholarly sources" section "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically. If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the unreliable template." (my emphasis). Each reference is discussed on it's merits. Ttiotsw 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ttiotsw: it's okay to use unreliable or biased sources so long as it is noted that such sources are considered unreliable or biased. Meanwhile, reliable source usage is encouraged anyhow. WP:NPOV requires investigating all sides of the story and all POVs, and, if some POVs can only be gleaned from unreliable sources, then unreliable sources might as well be used. Forbidding usage of nonreliable sources may, in some cases, amount to making an article POV rather than NPOV, and abandoning NPOV ought to be avoided. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertisement. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as per Ttiotsw. Well argued. --  Szvest   [[Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg|10px]]  Wiki me up ®  11:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gren グレン 13:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete  hi all, I think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings or some other pretty useless reason. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many more. I will start building article on this website organisation soon. Mak82hyd 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is essentially the same argument he made on Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International, with cut-and-paste techniques and taking out the Alexa number. I answered his assertations on the FFI AfD. I stand by my weak delete for Answring-islam.org and my keep for Faith Freedom International, by the way, since there is more of a case for the notability of the latter. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for making the stubs on that mate. I really appreciate it. it just shows there are people on wikipedia who have neutral point of view(copy n pasted. I dont like t write again if i have to say the same thing. why bother when we can make our lives easy, unless cheating or illegal stuff). Mak82hyd 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. --Aminz 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

btw
This site is included now included in the discussion section of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)/Partisan and extremist websites. You are invited to give your opinion. --Striver 16:27, 9 December 2006 (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.