Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and civil rights


 * 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 without prejudice against recreation. Consensus on the AfD seems to say that the topic is a valid article but cannot exist in it's current form. Valley2 city ‽ 05:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: for the sake of clarity, have made a slight grammatical correction to the closing summary. Ottre 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam and civil rights

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

This article fails wikipedia's original research policy because it is a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", namely that the position of women in Islam has been misconstrued; also fails WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP andy (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the section that was clearly attempting to argue a point regarding the role of women in Islam has been removed, therefore the asserted reason for deletion is no longer valid.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, could potentially be a valid article but would require starting from scratch and not working from this biased article. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, the nominator is right, it serves to advance a position, and is a synthesis of published material that seeks to advance that position. WP:SOAP article, though WP:NPOV isn't a criterion for deletion. Also, I'm disturbed that the article uses Wikipedia, self-described as a tertiary source at WP:PSTS, as a source, though this, too, is not a criterion for deletion.  Jd 027  talk 19:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Aleta  Sing  19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is based on SOAP and OR. -Drdisque (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this load of WP:BOLLOCKS, but if snow deleting in the next day or so, please userfy it to me so I can go through the sources and check if any of them could be useful at Women in Islam.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above editors. Wacko Jack O   23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally OR to advance a particular POV. There probably could be a valid article written with such a title, but this is not it. Aleta  Sing 03:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC) After doing a little link following, I think the thing to do is redirect to Islamic ethics. Aleta  Sing  18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Since there are no civil rights in Islam, no article is needed. (No offense intended) Debresser (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very unhelpful comment. andy (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a valid reason for deletion either. Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a real mess, but it could, after discussion and much work, end up something like Palestinian law. But it might not be worth the hassle. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just followed a link from there to Sources of Islamic law, which is so vastly better than Islam and civil rights that I would probably have simply redirected if I'd known about it. On the other hand Islam and civil rights has already been deleted once so an AfD consensus is probably the best thing. andy (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least temporarily Note that the article in question has been tagged as under construction, which is intended to protect a fledgling article from immediate deletion. Please also note that this article is part of a collaborative project on the part of students learning, in part, about how Wikipedia works. As edits are still being made on this article, as observed in the article's edit history, I do not understand the eagerness with which the nominator has moved for the article's deletion. I recommend that the article be allowed to stand until the present work on it is completed. Once edits have ceased, as indicated by the under construction tag, I think that it would be justifiable to consider deletion. And if this article, or any other, retains serious flaws I would also agree to their deletion. At the moment, however, it is simply to early, and frankly is not in good form given how new the article is and the tagged request for patience while under construction.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several related articles being written by the same group students, all of which have serious problems. It would be highly relevant to know the name of the educational establishment, the course and the purpose in using Wikipedia. andy (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Collaborative writing is a great idea, but the products do not appear moving towards being encylopedia articles (i.e., "wiki, but not Wikipedia"). There are actually a bunch of articles that are apparently part of this same school project. Almost all are in a similar soapbox/essay state at best. Sure, the links and cites are being added and some other minor cleanups, but the whole tone and POV/content-forky nature are the fatal problem IMO. Vote Cthulhu has repeatedly been invited to read WP:SUP on several talk pages, to have students work in sandboxes until the articles are actually viable for mainspace, and provide more information about the project so others can help or know what to expect, but has thus far completely refused as far as I can see. So now there are 5 days to get this one into decent shape. DMacks (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Several points must be mentioned here: 1) Not all of the sections in every article reveal POV content. This particular article has already seen a large chunk of POV material removed. POV can similarly be removed from the other articles as well. This does NOT require wholesale deletion. If this is the "fatal problem" then these can be excised and the articles saved; 2) I have read WP:SUP. This does nothing to resolve the present situation and adds nothing to the present discussion; 3) I have replied when asked what others can expect: groups of students are working collaboratively and separately to build distinct articles on a range of topics and religions. The root components of these articles ought to be in place this weekend, with ongoing editing over the next several days. As there are many students involved, one might expect some parts of any given essay to be better than other parts. There should thus be expected to be some parts that will be terrible and others to be quite good. Deleting an entire article throws out the baby with the bath water. Therefore, I've asked editors to consider helping to edit the articles rather than simply trying to have them deleted even as they are being edited. So, now there are 5 days to get this one into shape. Great. Please feel free to assist in getting it there. Wikipedia, as I see it, is not a place for conservatives who wish to delete anything that they see as offensive, misguided, or "against policy" but should instead be a place where a community works together to build the best possible resource for first-stop information. Deleting this article out of hand is, frankly, regressive. (Finally, the identities of either me or my students, the institution that they are affiliated with, or the course they are pursuing are not in any way relevant to this discussion whatsoever).Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A question that is relevant though is: is the material already better covered in other articles on Wikipedia, such as Islamic ethics, Homosexuality and Islam, Women in Islam, and others? Would it be better for the students to work on expanding and clarifying these existing articles? <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly relevant questions. These are not the issues stated as the reason for deletion above, however, which I think has already been dealt with in the article. As to these questions, however, while some of the material in this article are dealt with elsewhere, not all of it is. A reader looking for information on civil rights issues has to search through all of those articles that you've mentioned, and others, in order to find what he or she is looking for. This new article ought to provide the desired information more readily. So, while these other articles will doubtless go into far greater detail o the broad issues surrounding women or homosexuality in Islam, say, the present article will focus all of these topics within the framework of Civil Rights. I hope that answers your questions. Is it better to have more or less Wikipedia articles? Arguments can be made on both sides. Here, the argument for more articles is that this one will bring a number of issues together under one heading, while providing the links out to more detailed articles when necessary and/or available.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as soapboxy synthesis. Note the article should also be scrutinized for potential copyright violations: compare the Alcohol in Islam section and this essay. Another article created by the same supposed school project also had similar problems: See my comments at  the Hinduism noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no copyvio here. The author has paraphrased in summary points found at a sourced online article.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Vote Cthulu was unaware that multiple editors could work on the same article in a sandbox or about the possibility of userfication. I recommned userfying this article to Vote Cthulu's userspace, and would be happy to do the move. Note to Vote Cthulu and Students: any copyright violations are still not allowable in userspace, and can and will be deleted upon recognition as such. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 04:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've explained in another discussion, I am unable to do anything with a userfied version at this time.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you're really leaving us little choice except to delete: WP is not a free webhost. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE - I've nominated a related article at Articles for deletion/Taoism and death - same people, same problems.
 * Delete more of the same school project that brought us Hinduism and science, and with all the same problems. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * User-fy and Delete: Sorry, this is a poorly cobbled together synthesis, despite User:Vote Cthulhu's outstanding effort. It needs a full tear down as the topic itself is dubious, and I'm not convinced that (on Wikipedia, at least) could be ever be anything other than a fork for dueling POVs involving people like User:Debresser (who at least is honest about a prejudice quite common around here).   It's telling there is no Christianity and civil rights or Judaism and civil rights articles.  I'm not clear what the definition of the topic even is, apart from "yes, we adhere to basic concepts of civil rights" or (worse) "no they don't".  Something along the lines of Civil rights law in Muslim majority nations or Civil rights in Muslim law (which could examine alternate definitions which might equate to Civil rights before their invention in the West).  These might be encyclopedic, but that title is going to drag you down all sorts of back alleys that I'm not sure Wikipedia should be going.  Also, someone needs to get a handle on whomever is sponsoring these article at UC, email or phone them, and tell them to cut it out. Creating a bunch of "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" is a really poor idea.  After the third, there needs to be some community sanction. T L Miles (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you should check out the last remaining afd in this group of "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" articles, namely Articles for deletion/Christianity in Haiti. All the other ones are strongly Delete because of the quality of the article but this one is entirely Keep because of the notability of the topic. Indeed one editor comments that it should be kept specifically because it's a "Christianity in..." article despite acknowledging the fact that the article itself is unsalvageable. Go figure. andy (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point! From what I can glean (since the person who gave the assignment is not forthcoming) students were asked to create "[religion name] and [random modern topic]" articles here on Wikipedia. Expect the person giving the assignment didn't think to see if the topics students would be creating would fall within community guidelines, let alone what would happen to th content they created if other editors felt it was poor.  Perhaps the learning element for the students will be to learn that the community does have standards, and a process by which we decide if topics fit into what we need.  Getting the assignments which don't meet these standards deleted might be the process which they learn this.  Regardless, our obligation is not to this class or their professor: we shouldn't take into account at all if s/he can't meet with students or if grades depend on these article being on Wikipedia at a certain time, with certain content, or at a certain name. I've taught and been in classes and seminars with poorly thought out assignments.  The professor should consider this a learning experience, let student work be userfied or moved to some other wiki, and move on. Per Christianity in Haiti, I'll make my comments there


 * 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.