Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic bicycle (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. The article has already been moved to Bicycling in Islam. As an aside, please don't move articles until after an AfD discussion has been closed, because it upsets the script that admins use to close these discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Islamic bicycle
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not exist.

Last year I proposed deletion but was told that the sources show that the subject of the article exists - as I cannot read Farsi I asked for a quote from one of the sources to show that the subject of the article exists but no quote has been provided. Earlier I had suggested merging to Bicycling and feminism but that was rejected. I do not propose to rename the article. Since 2018 several people have discussed renaming but have not actually done so. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Engineering, Cycling,  and Transportation. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Yes, it is not something that exists. It is an article that attempts to draw together, in a WP:SYNTH-like manner, anecdotal news and opinion pieces about issues about women cycling from around the world. IF there is anything useful to be said on this subjects, Women in Islam would be the place. Inventing names for things that do no exist, such as "Islamic bicycle", is WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that @Bookku is updating the article. If and when they or anyone else renames the article I will probably withdraw this deletion proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and let rename discussion @ t/p proceed at its own pace:
 * Though nom uses word 'Last year' previous AFD discussion is closed as Keep and continue rename discussion just on 2 January 2023. I.e. This AFD is repeating back with just few weeks gap is strange.
 * Talk:Islamic bicycle started by me on 12 Jan 23 clearly states ".. This is just tentative discussion, as part of WP:RFCBEFORE and not an RfC in itself. Before going for RfC I will prefer to expand the article so users will have better idea to take call. So pl don't be in hurry to start RfC but welcome to express primary opinions 'on suitable names' if you have not expressed in earlier discussion. .."
 * Today I added short description to the article "Women biking or bicycling in Muslim world" and added a section to expand the article." Within few hours repeat AFD nomination is being raised. See article history Is this really not bordering 2nd point in WP:Speedy keep → WP:CSK 2. The nomination .. made for .. disruption ?
 * Nom raising 'content dispute' question pertains to minority view as of now the rest of users in previous AFD suggested change of track for the article with rename. In any case usually a content dispute is supposed to go through WP:DR processes. WP:AFD is last stage and in previous AFD I pointed out nom that they had not completed WP:BEFORE.


 * Nom themselves seem well aware 'Significant coverage' for the topic "Women biking or bicycling in Muslim world" is available. Rather I am using a citation they used in another article themselves (But they did not use women cycling related content in detail enough). This raises a question whether they are trying to avoid reflection of criticism in the citation – (the citation used previously by themselves)– under some other pretext. I wish they assure us, that is not the case. If that is the case then they are expected to contest content with WP:DR and not by repeating WP:AFD.


 * I can develop article in draft namespace too but that is not fair chance to the article which has been just recently discussed through AFD process. Hence I encourage nom to withdraw repetitive AFD nomination and give a fair chance to the process of article repurposing and rename at the talk page.


 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article has been discussed since 2018 - just be bold and rename it if you want to Chidgk1 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This could have been said @ article t/p, (Also WP:DR is available for sorting out content disputes if any). Is it essential to use WP:AFD route in repetitive manner to make WP:POINT ? &#32;Bookku    (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Note:Pinging previous AFD participants who are still to join discussion    &#32;Bookku    (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging previous t/p participants @Morten7an @PetarM &#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep "Last year", ie 2 months ago. This nomination is clearly disruptive at this point and no deletion reason has been given by OP as of writing this statement. Sources were provided in the previous discussion showcasing notability. I guess I'll have to give them again.
 * Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver  seren C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver  seren C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver  seren C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver  seren C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver  seren C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly merge elsewhere on Cycling and religion or whatever is appropriate. This term is honestly vague and there is not anything as "Islamic bicycle" that exists in real. If folks want it to be renamed, this is not the best venue but an RM is. Best, ─ The Aafī   (talk)  15:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Bicycling and Islam. The topic is notable yet the current name is SCANDALOUS. I can totally understand why some folks are upset. If a news site writes "Islamic bike" in the title of an article that is clickbaiting and, especially in current markets, fair game. From an encyclopedia, we should expect some precision! gidonb (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the current name. If you want to rename the article please be bold and do it now Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been pinged to come to this discussion: I will just copy what I said at the previous AfD:
 * Keep but rename from an imaginary concept to a real issue: "Women cycling and Islam" or similar. Pam  D  07:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note also Bicycling and feminism which needs some serious copy-editing. Pam  D  07:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pam D  17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been rename discussions since 2018. If you want to rename the article please be bold and do it now Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Done and Done LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I hereby withdraw my delete proposal: Thanks for discussion and renaming and article improvements Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Liz and @King of Hearts since you have participated in listing or closing previous AFD, I wish you do guide after OP's above declaration about withdrawal of nomination. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Bicycling in Islam" is OK name. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Chidgk1, AFD is not a forum to discuss article renames. It's a waste of editors' time to consider deletion and other alternatives and bring together sources if you are just seeking to rename an article. And while it is technically not against the rules, it is disruptive to rename an article that is in the middle of an AFD discussion because it messes up a discussion closure or relisting with XFDcloser which is the tool we use to handle these processes. I typically move an article back to its original name to close a discussion and then, if necessary (because an article is being Kept), move it again to the desired page title. So, your "be bold and do it" attitude causes problems for those of us who close discussions and saying that you withdraw a misguided nomination on the condition that an article rename is out-of-place. As the nominator, you can recommend an action you prefer but you can't keep a discussion hostage until you get the result you want. Since I have expressed some strong opinions here, I will not be closing this discussion but I assume the admin who does won't be happy with how this one was evolved. Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 9 February 2023 (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.