Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of conversion of Jews to 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 Keep per Snow - Non-Admin Closure. Fosnez 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

History of conversion of Jews to Islam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These articles are clear propaganda. This is an obvious POV fork that clearly lacks notability; it is poorly sourced and has been for over a year, and they are obvious POV magnets. Even more important, it is unsourced and unverifiable.

I am also nominating Jewish Christians for deletion, becuase it has the exact same problems as this article. It too is an unsourced pro-Christian POV fork. Sef rin gle Talk 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Huh? What point of view? Forked from what article? Possible bad faith "POV" nominations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever is sourced here, (which is very little of the article- most of the article is unsourced OR) belongs in Judaism and Christianity or Islam and Judaism. They are POV, as they give undue weight to the views of those who leave Judaism. Not to mention everything stated has been mentioned in other articles. Sef rin gle Talk 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep both The Jewish christian article has reliable sources, though some are listed as External references. I think there would be hundred of others. I notice a long history of editing disagreements, and this is not the way to solve them. The Islam article is somewhat less extensively developed, but it too is a clearly notable topic. Nominating them together does seem like POV. DGG (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated them together because they both are POV forks, and they are both poorly sourced. The muslim article does not show notability, so prehaps you can explain hoe it is clearly notable.Everything that is sourced belongs in other articles. Sef rin gle Talk 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   —Eliyak T · C 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments "Everything that is sourced belongs in other articles" Thats why they are in a new, separate article. Its to bring them all together in one topic. All the information in "Automobile" and "economics" can be found in other articles too. Its not just POV to write an article on a subject, its also POV to delete all articles that you object to, leaving just your article and your voice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not nominating all articles I object to leaving only my voice. I am proposing deleting two clear unsourced POV forks which belong in articles where the content actually is sourced. Material that is inherently POV should be deleted, especially without sources, as it goes against wikipedia's WP:V policy. Sef rin gle Talk 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article I read looks well-sourced using reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Notability standard. I'm not sure where the POV is, other than in the nomination. Alansohn 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Islam article has all of 3 sources., which is a book review that doesn't show notability in itself. The second source is relevant, but alone doesn't establish notability. It would be better if this one statement was moved to another article. The third source is a book source that doesn't establish notability. The forth source  barely talks about the relevance of the topic. The Christian article at least has an external links section, but overall has no merits which prove notability. The links are similar to those sources in Judaism and Christianity, and the article itself has no viable content. How does these poorly sourced articles satisfy wikipedia's notability standards?  Sef rin gle Talk 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. the articles has references and doesn't look like having a POV. possible bad faith nom (probable COI) after seeing nominator's userpage and the "shotgun" reasons for deletion.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:40, 19 September 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.