Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam: What the West Needs to Know


 * 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 of the debate was sigh...no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS IS NO CONSENSUS NOW. IF IN THE FUTURE CONSENSUS IS OBTAINED TO MERGE, REDIRECT OR WHATEVER, THEN DO IT. THIS AFD CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED TO BACK UP SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER IN THE FUTURE. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Islam: What the West Needs to Know
Non Notable film, added by pov pusher. Less than 12 Unique Google hits, including some Blogs with enlighting titles, such as "Jihad Watch" and "dhimmi watch" (From the same makers as Jihad Watch, mind) also "news" sites, such as "world net daily" and "Feeds Farm".. and some encyclopedia called "Wikipedia"! Irishpunktom\talk 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * POV Pusher? Look who is talking. For your information JihadWatch, Dhimmiwatch and [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ World Net Daily] and other such websites are simply sources of information on current events deserving of public attention.--CltFn 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - As nominator. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Wikipedia NPOV policy Neutral point of view--CltFn 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is being considered for deletion because the movie is not notable or famous. Would you please comment on how NPOV is relevant?--Esprit15d 14:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the wikipedia NPOV policy actually states that all POVs should be presented, this being a far cry from the belief of some editors that anything that is controversial should not be presented under the guise of being POV. Its not me saying this , just read Neutral point of view. So in a nutshell let all voices be heard dude.--CltFn 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, that's not why this AfD was brought up. The movie is, according to the description, not notable. He, I believed, called you a POV-pusher, however, which might be where you got the idea that this has got to do with the NPOV policy. I generally disagree with Irishpunktom's statement that the movie is not notable (barely), but NPOV this article is not. Which means it warrants a clean-up, not outright deletion. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 05:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was answering Esprits request for comment.--CltFn 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Esprit15d asked what NPOV has got to do with this AfD. I'd like to know, myself -- the issue of contention right now is that the article references something that is "Non Notable", to use Irishpunktom's words. Why bring up NPOV anyway? Saying that this article should be kept as per Wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't going to save this article, because someone can just come up and say, "Okay, so it's a point of view. That doesn't mean that all points of view should be given equal validity in Wikipedia." &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Not notable. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems the movie has recieved some media attention. Also the article seems to be NPOV & does provide the reader with some genuine information. -- Karl Meier 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations . It's had some media attention, so it's no longer not notable. It's going to need some serious cleanup to keep it NPOV, but that's assuming this article survives this AfD. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've given it some thought, and frankly, if it's only being seriously reported by two news agencies since its release, and has only been released once and not been distributed, it's really not notable. Come back when there's a DVD or something. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete while its notablity is borderline, I doubt anyone can find an editor who could NPOV this. --BadSeed 10:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I keep thinking about that. I mean, it has Google pages referencing it -- but most are from similar sources -- maybe half a dozen unique sources, tops. It has two Google News entries around the time I'm posting this... and I keep thinking: where's the conversation? Where's the interest? Does this thing really deserve a page by itself? &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only news sites referring to it that I fund where from WND, and considering several of the "stars" are contributors to WND, this fails any concieveable notion of notability. Thus far, this film has been shown once and has not been distributed. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a guideline somewhere saying "Will anyone remember/care about this in 10 years time? If not it's not notable." I don't think having some google hits is realy relevant, it's not exactly hard to put something up on the internet. --BadSeed 15:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable POV magnet. Stifle 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Although the article describes the point of view of the film, the article itself doesn't express any particular point of view. Wiki's NPOV rule is meant to prevent articles from being written with a particular point of view.  The NPOV rule does not preclude having articles about subjects that represent or possess a particular point of view.  As for it being a non-notable film, there are hundreds of wiki articles on films, TV shows, comics books, etc, that aren't particularly notable.  The film exists, thus it has as much right to be written up in a Wiki article as any other film.  Simply the fact that it was premiered at the American Film Renaissance Festival in Hollywood makes it notable.  Its not just some home movie of unknown people.  Its obvious that the person wishing to delete this article simply finds the film offensive.  This consideration for deletion is nothing more than an attempt at suppressing information that some party dislikes.  Take a look at IrishPunkTom's user page - it clearly states that he is a member of some group called the Muslim Guild.  Obviously, he would dislike this subject matter.  Nortonew 14:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with this issue is it's considered not notable, not POV. Let's not just automatically assume that the AfD was made because the initialAfD poster was a member of the Muslim Guild and he would automatically offended by this movie. Assume good faith, folks. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I googled it and got 159 hits from a wide variety of sources. For something that's not notable, there sure are a lot of people talking about it.Nortonew 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what held me up at first as well -- it had a fairly significant amount of links in Google, so I voted for keep. But Google News only uncovers two news links to it, and from what I can see, it has only been shown in one particular film festival, and there's no talk for getting it distributed. That kind of clinched it for me, so I changed my recommendation to delete. I do note, however, that the film festival that it appeared in, the American Film Renaissance, doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet. That, IMO, is more notable than this film, and should be added. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Try going to Category:Documentary films and start entering the titles into Google's news search. You'll find that most of the documentary films in Wikipedia score zero hits on the news search.Nortonew 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the article remains, it definitely needs some NPOV work. Right now it sounds like an advertisement for the film, not an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The most promotional thing I see in the article is that it claims the movie is "unflinching" and "sober", those terms are definitely debatable and should be removed from the description. The rest of it seems like nothing more than a description of the film's contents in a fairly mundane fashion.  If there have been any Islamic groups, (or other groups), that have issued statements condemning or criticizing the film, it would be appropriate to add a section in the article documenting those statements.Nortonew 16:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator--Bob 17:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Attempt at censorship by Muslim editor: Nominator is a POV-pusher himself from previous experience, this is an attempt by him to censor criticism of Islam - He is Muslim himself and a member of the POV-pushing guild "WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild", the counterpart to WikiProject Islam which dedicates itself to NPOV coverage. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  12:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. *Very* obscure film. It'd be one thing if it were a well-known or influential book, but it's pretty clearly not, and to say that this is about censorship is patently ridiculous. --Improv 18:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that saying this is about censorship is at all ridiculous. If one compares the obscurity of this film to all the other documentaries at Category:Documentary films, this film is probably actually more notable than many of them.  A lot of them get fewer hits on Google and didn't get showings at film festivals.  Also, there is good motivation for this film to be censored.  Its really close to being a hate film aimed at Muslims, (maybe beyond just being close actually).  It claims to contain information that people need to know about Islam, but it documents massacres committed by Muslims against people of other religions over a thousand years ago.  Those incidents are not exactly pertinent in todays world, unless you are trying to just scare people and stir up negative feelings about Islam.  If this film had been aimed at Jews or Catholics, I would be willing to bet it would have been a Jew or Catholic nominating it for deletion.  Sorry, but assuming the best intentions in this case is simply burying your head in the sand. Nortonew 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, this is embarrassing. I'm beginning to see your point at this rate, and my opinion's wavering... again. Damn, I'm a Swing voter. This bites. &mdash; T-Boy : (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Screening at a major film festival is sufficient for me. Durova 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obscure film appears to be a biased look at islam rather than a documentary on islamofacisim. --128.2.225.185 03:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6 edits at time of vote. gren グレン ? 06:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fascists in Christian Clothing: The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was deleted on a 6 to 3 vote and it has confused me very much. I don't particularly care if we have a policy that keeps or deletes non-notable books that are critical of religion... we just need to have criterion set so that we don't get huge amounts of variation.  That book was more popular on Amazon than The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism (book) with every other sign showing that it was just as important.  Wikipedia is not paper but along with that Wikipedia should not be systemically biased.  So, that is my major worry in all of this.  I have historically voted keep on this type of thing but I am worried when it seems to come to different notability standards on books critical of different religions. gren グレン ? 06:09, 23 January 2006 (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.