Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations


 * 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. Mango juice talk 18:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
POV-fork of Council on American-Islamic Relations. Please everybody go back to work at one article. --Pjacobi 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - blatant POV fork, one article should be plenty for CAIR My Alt Account 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. This article covers a POV but that doesn't make it POV. All the info is cited and well written and there are plenty of other "Criticism" pages that have withstood both AfD and the test of time. NeoFreak 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as NeoFreak states above, if it covers a POV that doesn't make it POV, because there is a response section as well. This should not be merged back together, because according to the NPOV policy most of an article should not be criticism. This was already discussed here where everyone but one person approved of it. BhaiSaab talk 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why this can't go in the CAIR article. Redundant, unnecessary, just not worth creating a cascade of articles about every single subject that warrants a criticism section. I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but in this case it's just not necessary or helpful IMO. My Alt Account 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because an "article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." BhaiSaab talk 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re already discussed: No consensus of editors can trump policy. Please give overriding reasons why this should be an exception to Content forking.
 * Re undue weight: And if it gets an article of its own, there are no undue weight problems?
 * Re ''plenty of other "criticism" pages: Unfortunately yes, but they are all under observation and will be handled eventually
 * Pjacobi 06:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If "Criticism of..." pages were inherently POV, then those other pages would not exist. We have articles on individual Pokemon characters; there's no problem with giving this an article of its own. This is not a POV fork and is in accordance with Summary style. BhaiSaab talk 15:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - consensus was to move it off talk page. How is this a POV fork?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -per above. Also, I do not see any POV that can't be fixed. Separate article is necessary because CAIR has been heavily and extensively criticised by academia, free press, govt bodies, moderate muslims etc.Hkelkar 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. I don't see it as a POV fork. Well-sourced too. Arbusto 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; this article's material can (and just has) been merged back to the main article (from which it was removed, I think to make it less obvious.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) keep, now seems to be a consensus among CAIR editors that this material needs to be "broken out". Sdedeo (tips) 20:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arbusto and others. As it sits, I think the current CAIR article has major POV issues with over abundance of criticism. Merging this will article will only tilt that POV imbalance further. The main CAIR article should be re-focused on just the basic descriptions and history of CAIR with this article serving as a complimentary content fork. 205.157.110.11 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)