Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy and the United Nations


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy and the United Nations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

What is immediately apparent on this page is the atrocious POV issues, as evidence by the title. The article mostly consists of random policies and motions proposed and adopted at the UN relating to discrimination against religion, with no connection made to "blasphemy." For example, the passage from the article, "'Blasphemy became a serious matter for the United Nations in 1999. In that year, Pakistan brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR), under the agenda item on racism, a resolution entitled 'Defamation of Islam.'" is attributed to this source, which says, "Defimation of religions resolutions at the UN operate as international anti-blasphemy laws and provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, which in practice empower ruling majorities against weak minorities and dissenters." It seems to me that the article consists almost entirely of primary sources whose only connection is that some editor(s) thinks they are related to blasphemy. I do not believe WP:notability of this topic has been established by third party sources, as is required by policy. I think this article should be deleted and information that is salvageable, if there is any, should be merged into Criticism of the United Nations.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an opinion on whether the article should go, although it could probably be easily incorporated into another article. If it is kept, it needs to be moved. Whoever wrote the page has completely misused the word blasphemy. It should be religious defamation as that is what the article calls it most of the time. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - at best, this is such a mess we need to start over. The title is not even used in the article or the sources, nor is there any definition of the term. Violates the rule against soap-boxes. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, now it's been renamed (by me) to Defamation of religions and the United Nations. The previous title was pretty POV - 'blasphemy' is not mentioned in the laws in question. However, I think it's now an acceptable article, covering a notable subject that the UN has addressed a number of times. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a valid subject here. If the UN has passed resolutions on a subject then it is almost certainly notable. I flagged the old title as fishy some time back but regret that I didn't follow through and rename it myself. Now Robofish has done that, I think we are on a sounder footing. Work is still needed to rewrite the content in a more neutral way. I will tag for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for the United Nations, comprised of representatives from nations around the world, to dedicate their time to passing measures for it over the years. Google news search(for "Defamation of religions" and "United Nations") shows it gets mentioned in the news over the years, not just at one event.    D r e a m Focus  09:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The comments seem to mostly imply "if it's about the UN, it's notable." There has not been a single third party source provided claiming this is a significant issue.  How many thousands of resolutions does the UN pass that we do not hear about?  This article is really just a loosely defined list of resolutions, propositions, etc with only Wikipedia making the connection between them.  This is clear WP:OR.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you click the link I proved? This gets ample coverage.  Click and read through the summaries.   D r e a m Focus  23:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per AzureFury's comments above. This is absolutely WP:OR.  The intent of the original author is clear in his choice of the original title for the article.  No sources exist to establish the notability of "Blasphemy" or "Defamation of religions and the United Nations".  Fails WP:GNG, WP:OR, WP:NPOV.    Snotty Wong   soliloquize 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everybody voting "keep" accepts that there was a massive POV problem and that further work is needed. The article as it stands may not be written from sources and have an OR problem but the sources do exist and show that the subject is controversial:
 * About 170 Google News hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations" source:"-newswire" source:"-wire" source:"-presswire" source:"-PR" source:"-press" source:"-release" source:"-wikipedia" rising to 216 if you make it "religion" (singular).
 * About 333 Google Books hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations".
 * About 100 Google Scholar hits for "Defamation of religions" "United Nations" rising to 257 if you make it "religion" (singular).
 * OK. I know that counting hits is not foolproof, and that these are not astronomically high numbers, but they are pretty tight search terms and they do show that there is something out there on this subject. I don't think it is responsible to simply delete this article and forget the subject. Maybe it could be merged with an existing article. Maybe it could be gutted of POV and OR by stubbing it and building it up again. That would eliminate the original author's mistakes and give us a fresh start. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my original comment, I would merge whatever salvageable information there is into Criticism of the United Nations. If eventually some editor finds and expands that section into another article, I would have no problems with that.  I do not believe the appropriate development cycle for an article is to start with no sources, obvious original research, and atrocious POV issues, and then maybe if someone gets around to it, making it into an acceptable article.  I'll probably copy the article into the talk page at Criticism of the United Nations so that if anyone has the time or inclination, they can do with the information what they will.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate location to merge to, as it assumes that the UN's treatment of defamation of religion is a point of criticism. If perhaps you could have nominated it for move or merge instead of deletion, we could be spending our time fixing this article or finding out where it should finally rest.  I consider it without question that involving the UN in defamation of religion is a notable topic; I hear about it in the news fairly regularly.  I'm not even sure I see the POV in the article as it stands now; as you said it's mostly regurgitation of UN motions.  What about a cleanup and move to United Nations defamation of religion resolutions? - BalthCat (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The POV is subtle and not limited to any sentence or phrase. The selection of sources and motions to include are specified by the editor(s) and not any third party sources.  Considering the original name of the article, this makes the article's purpose very transparent.  In any case, I think a list format would be much more appropriate and an easier transition with what we've got.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Our policy on article titles explicitly discourages "foo and bar" type articles for this exact reason. This isn't original research per se, but it's begging to be an attack page or at least a coat rack for someone's grudges.  Given that the main United Nations article doesn't even mention religion, it's hard to argue that there's substantial content that requires a content fork from the main article, especially such a narrow and cherry-picked subpart of the topic.  SDY (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because it has been renamed once (to remove a gross deficiency) doesn't mean that the new title is perfect and that it has to be the final title. The "and" could be eliminated and another new title found more in keeping with the MOS.
 * The article is very far from being an orphan (it is even in a template) but your point that it isn't even linked from United Nations does need looking at. It might be that the link from United Nations Human Rights Council is sufficient as that covers human rights issues (or would do if it was a better article and a bit less obsessed with Israel). I am going to post a message on Talk:United Nations drawing people's attention to the article and its AfD. I will be very careful not to canvas for a specific outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding of WP:OR is that articles should rely primarily on third party sources. Unless I'm mistaken, the article currently possesses zero sources for the first claim, "Defamation of religion became a serious matter for the United Nations."  Which means that the article is entirely dependent on primary sources.  When we string together primary sources to make a point, that is WP:OR.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep- I appreciate the concerns of AzureFury and others that this article is likely to suffer from WP:COATRACK, WP:POV and WP:SYNTH issues but I would only advocate deleting an article on those grounds if it was inherently so and that the problems couldn't be fixed by regular editing and vigilance. I think there is a decent article to be salvaged from this thing. Reyk  YO!  02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO "this article's name could some day identify a decent article" is not a good reason to keep.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 06:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I think it's got the potential to be a decent article now. The following sources should be enough for a good start:, , . Reyk  YO!  06:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * weak keep might not be the right title or the right scope... but there's definitely an article around here somewhere... something about international law and religious defamation... give the article time to reach its potential... hopefully editors will actually work on this one Arskwad (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. User: DanielRigal questioned the title way back when. What blasphemy is and what defamation of religion means are matters raised repeatedly by groups which are interested in human rights. In the absence of any authoritative decision about whether there is any difference between the two terms, I opted for blasphemy. The consensus here seems to be that defamation of religion is the better term. So be it. The United Nations seems unwilling to abandon that term any time soon. User:AzureFury says the article should be deleted because it "mostly consists of random policies and motions." In fact, the article reports chronologically on what has been going on within the United Nations and between nations. As User: DanielRigal has noted, the subject is eminently noteworthy, and deserves its own article. The mass of information which underlies this article obliged me to chop up resolutions and to include only a line or a paragraph from correspondence. I tried to include enough material to indicate the nature of the debates going on in the United Nations. I tried to include enough material to give the debates a context, and to prevent the article from being seen as merely a list of resolutions. PYRRHON  talk   23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that source #1 for the article you wrote is specifically denouncing anti-blasphemy and anti-defamation laws at the UN, and you've used it to say, "The resolution expressed concern at the negative stereotyping of Islam, and urged the members of the United Nations to combat religious intolerance against Muslims." Infact, despite the huge controversy relating to empowering majorities against minorities and free speech concerns, this is not mentioned once in the entire article.  The word "speech" infact only occurs in a template at the bottom of the article which, not surprisingly, is linking to Freedom of speech versus blasphemy.  Is this how "include enough material to give the debates context"?  By comparison, the word "Islamophobia" occurs 4 times in the article.  Is this what you would call balanced?  It is this complete and indisputable bias that makes this article horrible beyond salvation.  That's why I think it should be reduced to a section in another article, or perhaps a stub (a balanced stub).  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why "beyond salvation"? Surely all we need to do is balance the coverage by fully documenting the arguments on both sides of the controversy, which we have sufficient sources for. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not the appropriate development cycle for an article. You don't start with a pile of crap and then craft something out of it.  We'd have to start from scratch, and this would be more appropriate at United Nations rather than in its own article.  If that section expands enough, then we can take a second try at an article.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 09:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it certainly isn't the ideal development cycle for an article, but I have seen it happen before, and decent articles have emerged. In the end that is all that matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; this is a valid article, and I can't see any POV violations at all. Bias in sources does not bias in an article make. Sceptre' (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2010 (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.