Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Sunni 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 was   delete. This might be a legitimate topic for an article, but consensus is that the current version is so deeply flawed at a fundamental level, that a future article would be better without this as a foundation. Courcelles 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Sunni Islam

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Criticism of Sunni Islam" is a creation of User:Humaliwalay, who has been editing the article without providing sources that help readers understand from who in particular is criticism recieved for Sunni Islam, which is a strictly followed religion of over 1 billion people in the world. Humaliwalay has used www.answering-ansar.org, which was found unreliable at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I think the article may qualify under G-1 Patent nonsense perhaps. Nothing in the article can be checked for verification, except the first 3 sources which I added but are not related to "Criticism of Sunni Islam". Those 3 only help explain that Sunnis are up to 90% of total Islam and Shias are the minority. When I read an article in which the faith of over 1 billion people is criticised I expect the article to to guide me in understanding why this is and who in particular are criticising their faith. The article even contain quotes such as "the Chapter of the Quran Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine", which is a strong indication that this article is made to bash Islam. AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - www.answering-ansar.org was only used for translation reference rather the original references were cited which were disrupted quite sometimes. Even sometimes the entire article was vandalized with major blanking by  AllahLovesYou here, This article was tagged though references provided were considered as most authentic after Quraan like Sahih Bukhari and others - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Further this article is not to bash any community or Islam religion, its only criticism reported found in the books of Sunni community, like how criticism has been reported in article Criticism of Twelver Shiism. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, Redirect & Salt - as per TFOWR comments on Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts here "Since Sunnis make up almost 90% of Muslims, I'm inclined to agree that this could be merged to Criticism of Islam". I have issues with the writing and sourcing of this article to feel that there is nothing I would salvage hence I am not advocating a formal merge. It is clear that the two major editors of this article (the nominator and the creator Humaliwalay) have been undertaking aggressive editing over this article, Humaliwalay's lack of understanding what constitutes vadalisum does not help their case, nor does AllahLovesYou's claim that the article meets CSG G1. Codf1977 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite - valid article, but it could use a rewrite and some cleanup, along with other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.26.222 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or fully rewrite - If you will take a look at my comments in the talk page, you will see that this article is nothing more than selected paragraphs copied almost word for word from answering-ansar.org, which is neither notable nor a reliable source. Delete it, or re-write it completely to include properly sourced criticism. Unflavoured (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unflavoured as stated earlier, www.answering-ansar.org was only used for translation reference rather the original references were cited which were disrupted quite sometimes.Humaliwalay (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response - "Only used for translation reference" is meaningless. The article is just a bunch of paragraphs lifted directly from the answering-ansar.org, sometimes with only 2-3 words modified. That site itself is not a reliable source. If you delete the copied content, you will have nothing left in the article other than the intro. This is why I recommend that the current content be deleted, and only valid, well sourced criticism be included, OR the article be fully deleted. Also, I edited your words to a Comment, since I see this often as standard in AfDs. If this is wrong then I apologize. Unflavoured (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unflavoured, no need to apologize, you as an editor are free to post your opinion and your editing of my words which you did is not a problem, I respect your efforts. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure on the CopyVio issue, however have asked Moonriddengirl to have a look here. Codf1977 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are copyright concerns. I have blanked a portion of the article and provided more details at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. This article, if we are going to have it, needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Right now it is written as if all of the criticisms are valid. Having said that, the topic is a legitimate one on WP. We have other articles on criticism of religions. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. In style and tone, this article demonstrates that it exists solely to express a point of view, at least in it's current form.  While I would certainly think issues of divergence and/or disagreement between the two sects are of encyclopaedic importance, they appear to already be sufficiently addressed in the main article on Islam and more specifically in the very well researched article on Shi'a–Sunni relations.  -Markeer 16:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a SOAPBOX; the relevant information is already covered in Criticism of Islam and Shi'a–Sunni relations with more comprehensive material and better references. Doc  Tropics  16:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Previously existing content has been warning flagged out of existence already, might as well take the old POV trojan horse back 'round the barn and put her out of her misery... Carrite (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - an article on this subject could be created, but it's really intended to be about Shia objections to Sunni Islam, which could be a valid topic, but this has been a barely intelligible mess obsessed by writing the Quran in urine and other equally important matters. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep the article, expand it so that it becomes intended to be about Shia objections to Sunni Islam. I cannot understand why the article is deleted if most of the material is not suitable. Keep the article and delete material except introduction and put a expand it tag on the page so the article can be written according to WP policies. Kavas (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reads like someone's got a sectarian axe to grind, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Wanna do that over at Shiapedia, go right the f* ahead. But not here. It's a legitimate topic, so Keep if it can be re-written in a neutral, verifiably sourced, non-antagonistic tone, Delete otherwise. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 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.