Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borg and Radical Islam


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Borg and Radical Islam
Absolute junk. YOU WILL BE DELETED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. --Nlu 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - As much as the 'take two unrelated ideas and let's do our best to find a relation' articles give me a much-needed chuckle, my For the Greater Good Hat says it can't stay. Barneyboo 23:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - "Many modern commentators have drawn a comparison between the Borg and the ideology of Al Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam." Good for a chuckle - perhaps that line can go into BJAODN, but ditch the rest. BD2412  T 00:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research with the line suggested by BD2412 being deleted. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the greater good of the collective. DJ Clayworth 00:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On a side note here: "The fundimental point here is that the borg are not human ... A similar state of affairs exists between the West and radical Islam.". And we wonder why Muslims sometimes view the West with suspicion. DJ Clayworth 00:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Assimilate into Allah (no, just delete) --Doc ask? 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Question how does an article about Borg and Radical Islam not qualify for speedy deletion?--64.12.116.72 01:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can think of a WP:CSD criterion to propose, I'll reconsider the possibility of speedy deleting it. --Nlu 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Original research, if that. &mdash; RJH 01:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Upon reading the article, it seemed to be self-evident that this is original research. I was then utterly amazed to find, upon subsequently performing research, that it isn't.  This comparison is one that quite a few people appear to have made, for several years now.  ([freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293228/posts "Islam is like the Borg in Star Trek"] "Muslim extremist are like the Borg in Star Trek" "Yes, for the French a woman in hijab is much like Star Trek’s Borg" "Muslims are exactly as the Borg in Star Trek")  However, this article is nowhere near how a neutral point of view encyclopaedia should present this.  It is completely without sources, and it does not attribute the opinion to those that hold it, but instead presents it as Wikipedia's own opinion.  The only way that this subject is anywhere near acceptable here is when presented from a neutral perspective, with all opinions properly attributed and reliable sources cited for all content.  (Attempts to present this, even in a neutral manner, with weasel terms such as those in the sentence quoted by BD2412, or without citing reliable sources for all content, are unacceptable.)  This certainly wouldn't be the content of such an article, and I have my doubts that this would even be the title for such an article. Delete. Uncle G 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research + one giant NPOV violation. -- Karada 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Unfortunately, the comparisons between the Borg and Islam are biased, uncited, and point-of-view (POV): any belief set may have parallels to the Borg, and singling out Islam is biased.  For example, the Borg may also be emblematic of Christians during the Crusades, et al. (as per Uncle G); perhaps both are better compared to juggernauts instead.  Ultimately in Wp, it's not a matter of free speech, or even about truth: it's about including information that can be cited from authoritative or reputable works and verified with a neutral point of view.  Moreover, a consensus (a supermajority or, in this case, unanimity) must agree to include this or that.  The Borg/Islam information added currently  fulfills none of these.  To paraphrase: Ignorance is futile.  You will be annihilated.  E Pluribus Anthony 23:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I don't want to make the mistake many people made in assuming that Smurf communism was original research. However, I'd expect to see at least one web page documenting this as a trend. If the page is the first place were this is presented as a trend then its original research. Seano1 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to BJAODN and delete. Firebug 02:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Izehar 20:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN per Firebug. Stifle 21:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN - although with reservations as this is very offensive to muslims and highly inaccurate. I'll WP:AGF it though, and presume humour. Zordrac 09:43, 1 December 2005 (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.