Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and the arts


 * 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. John254 01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Islam and the arts

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. (It was PRODded soon after it creation, hence this AFD rather than a PROD). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Oh wow, now it's BrownHairedGirl vs. the Muslims. ;) Neal (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Umm, are you really sure that Roger Ivie is muslim? ;) Seriously, though, I guess that working through the "I" section of Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is bound to pick up a few, but I had done all the Hs.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious comment Okay but seriously though, I just checked, we have an Islamic art. How is "Islam and the Arts" and different? So 1 is properly sourced, and this 1 isn't. So merge. Neal (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Merge any useful info (If any) and Redirect to Islamic art. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect does look like the best choice. This is really about religious/cultural restrictions rather than the arts themselves, but there is only a tiny bit about that in Islamic art and it could arguably be improved in that direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Islamic arts is about the actual art produced by Islamic cultures; this is about the attitude of Islam to the arts asa religious concept. Enough on both to justify separate articles; keep and expand. DGG (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge and redirect. Even accepting DGG's distinction above, this is a magnet for OR. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would be a keep without the refs due to importance of subject, but with the new refs it's a no brainer. -
 * Keep. The nominator seems to be confusing the concepts of being verifiable with that of being verified. WP:V says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged". Is there anything here which is challenged or is likely to be challenged? I note that the nominator hasn't specified which statements she challenges, so I have started on providing sources for every statement in the article, and have got about half way through so far. The only problem which there has been with this has been in selecting from the hundreds of possible sources for each statement. As regards merging, this is, as DGG says, a completely different topic from Islamic art. This article is about Islam, and that one is about art. Anyway merging is a discussion for talk and project pages, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, you ask "Is there anything here which is challenged or is likely to be challenged?". Ok, let's start from the top of the article as it was when I nominated it:
 * "Many Islamic rulings relating to the performing arts are gender and event specific." Which rulings? Says who? References, please
 * "Certain schools of Sunnis as well as some Shiites hold that music is forbidden with the sole exception being that women can play the Daf, a traditional one sided drum, at celebrations and festivals." Which schools? Says who? References, please
 * "Islam does allow singing without musical accompaniment within prescribed circumstances - namely that the performer be of the same gender as the audience." According to which schools of Islam? All or some? References, please, which explicitly address the diversity of views in Islam.
 * "However, the general consensus is that music is permitted in Islam provided that the lyrics are not obscene or vulgar." A consensus which omits significant chunks of Sunnis and Shias? Who is saying that there is such a consenus? References, please
 * ... and that only brings me to the end of section 1.1.
 * This article is a disgrace. It's a collection of vague and unsourced generalisations, in an article on subtle points about a major world religion which is the subject of heated and bitter controversies, and whose divisions are a major factor in the war in Iraq.
 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a distillation of the best sources on subjects of importance, not a noticeboard for jottings which would be failed if they were submitted as a school essay. Why on earth are some editors so outraged that after nearly two years of this abysmal effort falling far below our quality standards, the community has been asked to delete it?  Sure, there are plenty of good articles which could be written on the subject ... but why the assumption that just because a topic is notable, any old space-filler is acceptable?
 * WP:V says that "editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references". This one has had 21 months of being prominently tagged as lacking refs and has been categorised as such. How much longer are we expected to wait before an article is brought up to acceptable standards before time is called on it? 21 years?
 * Critics of wikipedia denounce it as unreliable, and we reply by pointing to policies such as WP:V.  However, unless we actually mean it when WP:V says that unreferenced material may be deleted, the policy is only window-dressing. There are plenty of wikipedia editors working very hard to write articles of a decent standard, in good prose and with clear supporting references, but the reputation of those articles is unfairly undermined by the excessive tolerance shown to articles whose editors have make no attempt to meet one of the encyclopedia's most fundamental policies.
 * The references now being added by Phil are a useful start towards making this article something worth keeping, and maybe when he's done it will be worth keeping. But I make no apology at all for seeking the deletion of the vague and unreferenced jottings which I found two days ago. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i talk to me 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per BrownHairedGirl. archanamiya  ·  talk  20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What? I argued for deletion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * possibly your last paragraph about how appropriate references were being added may have had an influence. You do seem to be indicating its been improved beyond when you nominated it. 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only the first section has any references, and it remains a collection of glib and simplistic assertions. A few refs were added, but that's all; the article needs a complete rewrite. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is about a notable topic and contains reliable references. Luk  suh  03:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that it's a notable topic, but even with the addition of a few references it remains a simplistic and misleading treatment of the topic. Much better delete it, withiut prejudice to recreation if someone can write a decent artricle. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. AfD is not forced cleanup.  The state of the article is irrelevant, as it can be improved via other methods than deletion.  Article is about a scholastically notable topic and contains ample references.  No reason to delete.  Celarnor Talk to me  11:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Lack of references is grounds for improvement, not deletion, and references are being added to the article. Edward321 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. May need some improvement, but definitely a notable topic. Klausness (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic and the current content is in alignment with foudational concerns (WP:NPOV, etc.). --Firefly322 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 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.