Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy


 * 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 snowball keep, Wikipedia is not censored. Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy
This article and the images it contains are inappropriate, spread hate and may cause in a global crisis. According to WP neutral point of view, the article contains biased opinion. On the other hand, the WP is not a news website or a blog. The images in question have not drawn big attention to be in an encyclopedia. --Techana 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's something wrong with the way this was nominated, since it's not showing up in the page for today, but I can't figure out what's wrong =\ ... at any rate,


 * Keep &mdash; Wikipedia is not censored and the article contains numerous referances to show its notability. &mdash;Salmar (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I figured out why it wasn't appearing. &mdash;Salmar (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but having sources is not enough to keep such an article. Offending can have sources but should not be in an encyclopedia. --Techana 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure, for example, that Charles Manson, Hitler, the Holocaust, the Ku Klux Klan, gang rape, warfare, gun violence, the Tellytubbies etc. offend many people, but we have articles on all of those topics. Oli Filth(talk) 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You're wrong. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Reproducing the images for the purposes of creating an article about this notable subject is not inappropriate. This user has a history of trying to censor the images based on his point of view without wanting to seriously talk about his changes first. For example: . The article itself operates within WP:NPOV as far as I can see and does not present bias. The images are certainly notable enough and pass WP:Verifiability. Fnagaton 23:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with this page, has a lot of references, is notable, and actually looks pretty good. Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Not this again! Have we not seen that arguments that "images of Mohammed == inappropriate" don't generally wash on articles where the images are clearly pertinent?  See e.g. the Kabba or Muhammad articles (and in particular, their respective talk pages).  We can go on doing this again and again, but the consensus outcome isn't going to change (see also WikiProject_Islam/Images_of_Muhammad).  Oli Filth(talk) 00:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like the media taking potshots on Muslims then hiding under freedom of speech either as it feeds a vicious cycle of hate. However, the article as it stands is strong in both verifiability and notability. A little improvement might even make this a GA-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry. I do agree with you on this. But our policies say that we must include notable things like this. This isn't really our point of view nor is it intended to promote thier point of view. But as an unbiased information source of a controversy like this. Sorry.  Marlith  T / C  00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is NPOV, well sourced, and notable Chris!  c t 00:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ! The incident was made notable by Muslim protest - including death threats - from several countries. MX44 01:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not censored, and the incident is clearly notable. This nom seems to be in bad faith B figura  (talk) 03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Substantial sources, notable incident/event, well presented. Controversial perhaps but Wikipedia is not censored. Pigman 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Oil Filth. this nomination is disruptive and part of user Techana's apparent holy crusade against the images. It's impossible to AGF here as edit history bears out that his only purpose here is to get rid of the images. JuJube 04:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a well-balanced, thoroughly-documented article that addresses a controversy that was front page news around the world. Alansohn 04:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipedia is not censored. This seems WP:SNOW keepable at this point.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep It's the attempts by some people to limit our right to freedom of speech which are 'offensive' to me. Nick mallory 10:31, 30 October 2007 (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.