Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in Saint Pierre and Miquelon


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Islam in Saint Pierre and Miquelon

 * – ( View AfD View log )

0.2% out of a population of 6,000 is what, 10 people? There are more people living in an average block of flats than there are Muslims in SPM. This article has no potential for further expansion. I suggest redirecting it to Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;there are two reliable sources (so far; i added one) which have found it relevant to discuss muslims in st pierre and miquelon, so it seems to me that the subject satisfies the gng. who are we to say that it has no potential for further expansion?  that's not a reason for deletion.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alf, you could write a little biography for every Miquelonais Muslim and the article would still be a stub. That's why I think it has no potential for expansion.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * and i will if there are sources for it! why does it matter?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  —&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's more like 12 people, rather than 10. Even so, this information should be in the Saint Pierre and Miquelon article, if it's anywhere. Though it's dubious that 12 people (two families?) makes it notable enough even there. First Light (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i would think that it's coverage in rs that decides notability, rather than existence in the present day. surely you don't want to delete all the articles on north american dinosaurs?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - coverage alone isn't enough. Significant coverage is required. Merely being mentioned in a reliable source doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Even with significant coverage, it's "not a guarantee" that the subject is notable. In such cases, "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article". Read WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, fair enough. i didn't mean to suggest that the notability of the topic was obvious on the basis of the sources.  clearly it's arguable, and arguing it is what we're doing here.  i merely meant to point out that it's the coverage in rs that should be the basis on which the decision is made, rather than the number of people involved.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of the Islam by Country series. The information is referenced. The fact there is little to talk about in terms of numbers is (IMHO) irrelevant. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 07:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Withdrawal of !vote after consideration, examining of the series as a whole and unsuccesfully attempting to find sources with any info to add historical information to article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The numbers isn't the issue, even though it has been raised. It's the lack of significant coverage, which means that the article will never be more than a "fact", which is not the same as an "article". First Light (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedia is a collection of facts. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia article is a collection of facts, with explanation, based on significant coverage by reliable sources. This single fact belongs in an "article", namely Saint Pierre and Miquelon. By itself it's just a "fact" and not an "article". It would be like having an "article" titled Nachos at Chiquito (restaurant), with the entire article consisting of "There are nachos at Chiquito (restaurant), with x number served every day." Without significant coverage, that "fact" wouldn't merit an article. First Light (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh Lord, not THAT bloody restaurant again!! But I can assure you, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that Chiquito's do indeed serve nachos :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The number of Muslims in Saint Pierre and Miquelon is largely irrelevant to notability. What matters is significant coverage.  What we have is simply a demographic facts and not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY:
 * "Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts"."
 * Closing administrators are likely to ignore !votes that have no justification or explanation. First Light (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reliable sources available; merging to either Saint Pierre and Miquelon or Islam in France would be WP:UNDUE, for obvious reasons for the former, and because there is no #by department section in the latter. Makes a part of a series on 'Islam in the Americas' (see navbox); if Islam in the Americas is ever written as an actual article as opposed to what it currently is (which is about to be speedied...), it could be merged and redirected there, but until then, keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The current article is a demographic fact with no likelihood of possibility to expand into an article. If and when an article on Islam in the Americas is created, this fact demographic fact can be added to the article, but that does not require us to keep an article around to hold onto this fact.  A link to the source document could be added to any of a number of places such as at the talk page of the Saint Pierre and Miquelon to note that the document exists and could be used for Islam demographics. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP is not a collection of demographic information of very small subcultures. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * it's not? why not?&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Demographics of Saint Pierre and Miquelon. Given that there are fewer than a dozen Muslims in this area the article cannot possibly ever amount to more than a one-sentence stub. This topic deserves at most an entry in a table rather than a separate article. Hut 8.5 22:37, 18 October 2011 (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.