Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims (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 delete. WP:OR concerns haven't been addressed - the sources listed do not appear to be relevant and new sources have not been presented here. --Core desat 04:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Muslims
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sweet Jesus, what a rubbish article. It stinks to high heaven. If it weren't years old, I'd have speedily nuked this pile of excrement. Where do I start? For starters, it's unreferenced, it's original research/synthesis, and it's a massive violation of our policy of neutrality. It's a veritable NPOV free-zone. Blatant content fork. It's a whopping great laundry list dedicated to "proving" the crimes of Muslims, with no sense of balance whatsoever. It selectively "cites", not academic works, rather random quotations from God knows where and a couple of news reports. For heaven's sake, get rid of this thing. It's a horrific blot on the face of Wikipedia. Moreschi Talk 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Kill it. I'll bring the stick. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuke from high orbit. Blatant NPOV violations, issues with WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V.  ^ demon [omg plz] 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally stupid - Raze to ground, burn rubble down, feed ash to pigs, jettison pig excrement into black hole - Pheonix 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep there are 17 references. If you feel there are POV issues you should edit the article rather than delete it. --PEAR (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17 irrelevant references. Moreschi Talk 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They sure look relevant to me -- why do you say they aren't? Also, if this is a POV fork, what is it a fork from? &larr;BenB4 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is abosulutely no way to make a neutral point of view article out of things done to muslims that were wrong. Also, consider the possible buffeting and/or pummeling of the author(s)' personal computer(s). (Unsigned, by Danieltiger45)
 * Comment better delete these to then: Historical persecution by Christians, Historical persecution by Jews --PEAR (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This text is a really amateurish way to decribe a complex historical phenomenon. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An extremely bad case of selective sourcing and original research and synthesis. Although the subject is notable and deserves an article, I can see precious little salvageable content here. This has to be re-written from scratch. --Targeman 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Impossible to make this NPOV without a total rewrite and a change of topic that avoids "historical persecution by group x against everybody else".   Acroterion  (talk)  20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As with HPBJews, it's sourced. I love the irony of the nomination: "Sweet Jesus, what a rubbish article."  Mandsford 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is taking a bunch of facts and calling it "historical persecution". These should be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but not here (like Mughal Empire) . Corpx 01:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The article is well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not synthesis or original research. Everything is sourced. Bad faith, biased POV nomination. Nominator did'nt afD Historical persecution by Christians but did the other two. Here's the question I ask every single one of you who did a delete: In the template, how are the Persecution of articles less worthy of an Afd as compared to the Persecution by group? Please go nominate the 20 persecution of articles too. We want to stay neutral, right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because other similar articles weren't nominated doesn't make this nomination a bad one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Phirazo 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then lets remove the other crap too, like Persecution of Muslims. Does everyone agree? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a wiki, there is nothing stopping you from nominating that article for deletion as well. Instructions are at Articles for Deletion.  --Phirazo 17:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This is well cited and not open; the afd nom seems ill-conceived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   —Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This article has been around for long, yet no serious attempts have been made to improve it. Although it has 17 sources, many aren't even relevent to the topic of this article. Thus much of this article is OR.Bless sins 03:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that we should we get rid of Persecution of Muslims too? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said (on another AfD), if you nominate it for deletion, and ask me to review the sources, I will and (perhaps) support its deletion.Bless sins 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(talk•contribs) 18:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. unsalvageable, POV-pushing mess. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom says unreferenced, article is too, didn't look any further. But, seems like a legitimate topic even if susceptible to bias.  No need to chuck the whole thing. &larr;BenB4 06:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should have an article on this topic, but I see nothing that can be salvaged in this one.  If we're to have an article on historical persecution by Muslims, it needs to be historical (i.e., sourced from history texts -- not present day news articles).  The current article is more about modern civil rights in Islamic countries. JulesH 10:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe this would have to be completely rewritten to be encyclopedic. It raises the question of how 'group crimes' should be organized in articles. For example, we would never have an article 'Persecution of short people by tall people,' we would have much more focussed articles on individual crimes or groups of crimes. Also we would follow the lead of historians who had written credible books on a topic similar to the article title, to be sure we were not guilty of WP:SYN. The references in this article seem very weak, for anyone concerned about synthesis. EdJohnston 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. as has been discussed on the talk page, a number of the entries in the article constitute original research. all of the "Historical persecution by..." articles are highly unencyclopedic, and Corpx raises a very valid point.  ITAQALLAH   15:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep article has sources and is well cited other issues can be discussed in talk pageHarlowraman 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments advanced at Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination). Bigdaddy1981 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If the refs are to be accepted, it seems history is primarily defined as being in the 20/21st century! A lot of it seems to be OR too. Would require a complete re-write to meet WP:V and WP:NPOV. → AA (talk) — 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Absurd WP:OR-violating "novel narrative." The Behnam 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one is responding to my query: What about Persecution of Muslims? If this article goes, then this one should also go. The same arguments can be applied there too. --Matt57
 * Comment feel free to nominate it for deletion. It certainly appears to suffer many of the defects of this article - notable topic but a laundry list of unrelated grievances of various importance presented with an implied common theme which is not shown through verifiable refs. Bigdaddy1981 22:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is certainly a lot of room for improvement though. Many important historical issues such as Dhimmi status or Banu Qurayza and Granada massacres have not been mentioned. Heja Helweda 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Large bodies of literature deal with this, a page like this belongs. It meets WP:rs and WP:V. Baka man  20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced, notable concept. Mathmo Talk 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article can exists only if original research and abitrary definitions of persecution are strictly avoided and a good number of sincere editors watch and join in its discussion pages; neither of these has been the case as far as I can remember. --Aminz 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The material in the article is as it has been pointed out well sourced, and the subject the article is discussing to both notable and important. -- Karl Meier 15:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - i'd have to disagree on that point, it has been tagged with More sources since February 07 (~ six months). this article consists of a string of unrelated events. could you refer us to any reliable sources dedicated to this specific topic?  ITAQALLAH   16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is not more than a sum of its parts. Also delete all other "persecution by" articles. Beit Or 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep &mdash; The topic is notable, but the article needs a lot of clean up. There are too many lengthy quotes, for one, and these just kill the readability. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no relationship at all between many of the events covered here except that their perpetrators were Muslims and we define them (rightly or wrongly) as persecution. It's the OR logic of "List of…" making its way into mainspace. Such titles prohibit neutrality from the start: were there anything positive about the way these various Muslim groups treated others, it wouldn't belong here as it's not an example of persecution. Contrast this to Dhimmi, which though intersecting some of the topics in this article, references a real historical phenomenon.Proabivouac 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original research per nom and Pavel Vozenilek. -- M P er el 06:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable topic; article is well-referenced. --musicpvm 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete - Articles that allege horrific things about a race or religious people are not encyclopaedic, and they all should be deleted. This one is no more worthy of deletion than any others alleging racial or religious bias. They all should be deleted. If the others remain, then this one should be kept too. Otherwise its demonstrating an unreasonable bias. 123.2.168.215 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic of the article is highly unencyclopedic. It's main purpose seems to be to denigrate members of a religious denomination. Just in case you wonder: Yes, I'd vote for deletion of any Historical persecution by ... article. --Raphael1 03:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2007 (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.