Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aslim Taslam (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure)-- Chenzw    Talk   01:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:Overcategorization. Muhammad said "I talked to an angel last night." Should I create an article named like that?!

Proposed article: I talked to an angel last night. HD1986 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; for a more complete rationale behind this deletion nomination, see User talk:HD1986. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, on the grounds that: 1) The claimed deletion rationale is bizarre, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 2) This article was kept after a previous deletion nomination, and the proposer has offered no explanation as to what, if anything, has changed since then.  3)  The article is about a valid entity which is worthy of inclusion here (even if the article needs improvement in some respects). AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; just to clarify my position, I don't think such an article should be voted on to whether keep it or not. Having such a voting is a clear bias. I'm going to make an article called "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" soon and categorize it under "Jewish phrases," and let's see if they will have a voting over it or not. Secondly, and more importantly, if there should be a voting the voters should be neutral users. I mean not outspoken fanatics such as user:AnonMoos; and since this is an article that is basically anti-Islam, the muslim view should be taken into consideration to maintain NPOV. Since I'm not Muslim, I'm not going to explain the Muslim POV, but I'm an Arabic-speaker and I know that this letter was not properly translated to English. HD1986 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- Herem is an article partly because the word occurs in the Old Testament, but "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" is not discussed on Wikipedia because that phrase occurs absolutely nowhere in the Bible. Meanwhile, getting back to the actual relevant subject of the article at hand, it's an indisputable fact that early Muslim historiography contains accounts of Muhammad and other early Muslim rulers sending a number of letters or messengers to surrounding rulers saying essentially "submit to Muslim rule / overlordship or prepare to be conquered" -- and that being the case, there's no reason why this subject can't be covered on Wikipedia.  Meanwhile, I wonder on what basis you deduced that I am allegedly a "fanatic".  I'm sure that I have much more valid information available to me to conclude that you're flitting about hither thither and yon in Wikipedia making making dogmatic arrogant pronouncements on matters you really know rather little about (not to mention knocking my Watchlist offline -- and the Watchlists of a number of other users as well -- with the "Homat el Diyar" nonsense...). AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * General semi-random observation -- P.S. Right now I'm in the position of simultaneously being called an Israeli stooge by the self-pointed defender of Islam User:HD1986, while getting disapproval from strong Israeli nationalists over on Talk:Majdal Shams... AnonMoos (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not a vote, HD1986. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment &mdash; "kill every man, woman, and child in Canaan" occurs literally absolutely nowhere in the Bible, but the phrase "Aslim taslam" occurs absolutely nowhere in the Koran neither literally nor implied. Actually I think a more sensible translation of the letter is this one Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State. Muhammad explains what he means by his threat when says "if thou rejects, thou shalt bear the sins of the Arisiyins". He is threatening with God not with using force.HD1986 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one ever did claim it was found in the Qur'an, as far as I'm aware. Meanwhile, the translation in that article attempts to emulate ca. 1600 King James Version style early modern English, with mediocre success (something which does not necessarily add to its comprehensibility) accompanied by frequent personal interpretative explanations in parentheses.  And on some occasions, similar letters were sent out in anticipation of planned military attacks... AnonMoos (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Added comment on translation deficiencies in that article to Talk:Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out the new page: O generation of vipers. HD1986 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, this would appear to be a violation of the WP:POINT and primary sources rules. Second, quite a number of Christians would find the wording "the Christian god Jesus Christ" to be offensive.  Third, Christianity and Judaism did not exist as separate religions when the phrase was uttered (the word "Christian" itself didn't even exist until after Acts 11:26) -- at the time Jesus was a Jew presenting an interpretation of true Judaism. AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So the wroding "the Christian god Jesus Christ" is offensive though it is factually ture, but "Aslim Taslam" and the whole presentation of this article isn't offensive? I'm sure Jews don't consider abandoning the Bible laws and the observance of Shabat the "true Judaism". The worthiness level of that article is equivalent to this one's.HD1986 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

See Ceyockey ... within less than an hour, the new article has gotten a speedy delete tag. No discussion, no opinions ... this is what I'm talking about ... BIAS ... HD1986 (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you are referring to 'this is not a vote', above. That does not mean 'one person will decide regardless of others' opinions', HD1986, but rather that bias introduced by counting 'me too' votes is ignored in favor of pros/cons arguments.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2nd comment The article was rejected for speedy deletion, HD1986. Many many pages are tagged for speedy deletion which are not automatically deleted; every speedy-tagged article has eyes put against it for a "is this consistent with policy" check by an administrator, who decides whether or not to delete speedily.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. It is well-sourced and notable. Religious phrases, such as Render unto Caesar... are common. If this exists and its mentioned in multiple sources it should be kept. Also the nominator should not attack people in the AFD-- or elsewhere for that matter. We66er (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per WP:NOT. As it stands now, this is essentially an essay containing largely original research/synthesis. Yes, it is clearly sourced but it is not encyclopedic. Frank  |  talk  12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now Hard to determine whether this is notable enough for an article of its own. There are a few secondary or tertiary sources in the article, but mostly it's primary sources. This source describes the phrase as famous (celebre). This literary work may be making an ironic allusion to the phrase. (In my mind, if a phrase is well-known enough to be alluded to in literature, it merits mention somewhere in wiki, perhaps in its own article.) Is there a list somewhere that this could be merged to? Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sarcastic nomination + appearance of legit sources in the article = I don't see a compelling reason to delete. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, viable topic. Some of the wording can be revised (through remember that not all articles must adhere to a Judeo-Christian viewpoint in use of terminology, as long as NPOV is maintained) but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeping this article requires taking in consideration the Muslim understanding of the phrase "Aslim Taslam" expressed in this article Muhammad's letters to the Heads-of-State. Since this is an Islam-related article, it must take the Muslim POV in consideration to maintain NPOV. HD1986 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:01, 9 September 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.