Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the Islamic world


 * 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. AFD is not a venue for solving POV problems or pushing one for that matter. This article does contain POV, but this fact alone does not warrant the deletion of a comprehensive article.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the Islamic world

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV content. The article has been rewritten to make it look like these are "islamic Inventions" It would be more reasonable if they included this quote as a caveat "In English we use the word “Islam” with two distinct meanings, and the distinction is often blurred and lost and gives rise to considerable confusion. In the one sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christianity; that is to say, a religion in the strict sense of the word: a system of belief and worship. In the other sense, Islam is the counterpart of Christendom; that is to say, a civilization shaped and defined by a religion, but containing many elements apart from and even hostile to that religion, yet arising within that civilization." from Bernard Lewis in What Went Wrong?" but the Muslims full of religious zeal keep deleteing this as it goes against their agenda most of the things here are "developments" anyway and not inventions.Protest against islamic imposition (talk) 18:30, 15 ebruary 2008 (UTC)


 *  Keep  While yes, the POV is all over the place, this article has use and serves as a good tool for people who need information on these things. It is a generally worthwhile article.  Perhaps protecting the page and forcing editors to come to a consensus on what needs to be changed re: POV is in order instead of deleting alot of useful information.  Queerbubbles (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The POV issues in the article are easily fixable, and the article itself covers a very notable subject. -- Good Damon 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the user who proposed deleting this article has used inflammatory language and a blatant attack on a religion in his or her username, and has been blocked indefinitely for these actions, I suggest this AfD be closed quickly. -- Good Damon 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 *  delete  have sugested adding that quote that makes the situation clearer but this is continually deleted by Muslims with the aim of misleading people, for their agenda. As they cannot accept even this small caveat why should they be trusted with this article? Protest against islamic imposition (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is not the way to solve POV problems.Vice regent 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article does have a few neutrality issues, but this doesn't qualify as a valid reason to delete the entire article. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - AfD is not intended to serve as dispute resolution. BusterD (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowball keep - nomination took "bad faith" to a whole new level. That's the only WP:NPA thing I can say. Bm gub (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2008 (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.