Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Militant Islam in Australia


 * 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. There is consensus that the topic is better suited to be covered in Terrorism in Australia and Islam in Australia respectively. Can be userfied if there is consensus for merging any content there.  Sandstein  11:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Militant Islam in Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be a 'resurrected' article that was previously deleted - and the response to the initial prod questioning this was simply reverted, with no attempt to understand that many australian editors would consider article re-creation so soon after the previous article deletion, without any form of discussion, as lacking in adequate understanding of how article re-creation might occur - in a community of editors where adequate discussion might precede any re-commening of a subject. As there has been no discussion, it is hoped an AFD might allow members of the Australian editing community an opportunity to discuss, after the factm rather than what would have been more WP:AGF - discussion before 're-creating' satusuro 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If in fact the editor creating both articles claims they are 'different' - there has been inadequate explanation as to why and how, now is the opportunity. satusuro 08:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is in fact a different article. The subject matter (as well as the material) is not the same. "Radical Islam" is essentially fundamentalist Islam (interpretations, an the organisations that promote it), "Militant Islam" includes Islamic militias and other groups involved in violence regardless of their interpretation of Islam (be it conservative or radical). I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt an old favorite topic of User:DavidYork71 and his multitude of socks(note: not implying current article creator is related to this user) Islamic terrorism in Australia by another name, definately a WP:POVFORK of Islam in Australia. Gnangarra 08:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * wasnt aware of the Radical Islam in Australia article discussions, this is more of the same noting that that prior AFD was sent to DRV where this closures was endorsed. Gnangarra 10:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have no idea if it was the same person, but we've definitely had this article deleted before under another name, and the same rationale that applied then applies now: this, by the very definition of its topic, takes an opinionated point of view. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article operates on a similar basis to the Radical Islam in Australia article (which was also created by I.am.a.qwerty) and has the same problems which led to its deletion through Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia and the subsequent deletion review. "Militant Islam" isn't a topic which can be satisfactorily defined, and this is surplus to the Islam in Australia and Terrorism in Australia articles from which much of its content has been taken without any discussion of the merits of creating another article on this topic. The definitional problems are illustrated by the article asserting that the plot against PM Bob Hawke was motivated by "militant Islam" despite the reference given stating that the plotters were motivated by his support for Israel, and almost all of the "ISIL-related incidents" section discussing incidents involving Australian nationals who were very much not "in Australia" at the time. Like the Radical Islam in Australia article, this is also not far from a WP:POVFORK. As the article has been created in dubious faith, contains WP:SYNTH and is not on a genuinely viable topic I don't think that it should be retained. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Rename or Merge into Islamic terrorism in Australia (currently serving as a redirect); there appear to be plenty of, and accumulating, RS'd incidents to justify an separate specific article beyond the already existent Islamic terrorism and Terrorism in Australia general articles. Needs some minor POV clean-up, but is otherwise well-formatted. Pax 11:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even just on procedural grounds there is enough here, as this is clearly an attempt to replace the Radical Islam article. But also per Nick-D and Drover's Wife. I think perhaps the creator would be well-advised to discuss any future articles of this sort before creating them. Frickeg (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per the same rationale for every other time we've deleted an article on this topic. Pure POV pushing, despite protestations to the contrary.  Refer Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia, among others.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete as per Lankiveil above. -- Chuq (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is there an Islamist campaign of terrorism in Australia? Even more to the point, has there been a terrorist campaign in Australia at any point contemporaneously which has not been Islamist in nature? If the answers are 'yes' and 'no', then there should be an article on the subject, not a weak redirect to a generic article. Pax 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the arguments of ressurection are blantently false as the content I used to create the radical Islam in Oz page was used to create two other pages. The radical Islam in Oz page had material on the Aussie Jihadi posting photos of decapitated heads. That section lead to the creation of the ISIL beheadings page. The section on radical organisations lead to the creation of Islamic orgs in Oz. This article has new content on Islamic militant groups in Australia (Mantiqi 4, etc.) as well as the ISIL in Oz material (recruiting Aussies, threats to Australia etc.). The ISIL material is from the main Islam in Australia page which is quite long and in need of a main article to wrap things up properly. The terrorism in Australia page contains plenty of non-Islamic material and is mostly short paragraphs with links to the main article for each incident. (That page would probably look better as a list instead of an article as all attempts to form it as a single subject have failed thus far...)


 * It seems to me that this AFD is simply a knee-jerk reaction of editors who believe there shouldn't be a stand alone article on Miltant Islam in Australia and attempt to throw some alphabet WP policies for their reasoning despite the fact that this article fits the general criteria for notability as a stand alone article on WP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder to the editors who did not follow up with the second round of discussions on the deleted Radical Islam in Australia, the final decision rendered the article's deletion valid was solely due to WP:Fork, not any of the POV arguments some would like to believe. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true. The close was simply "Overwhelming consensus that AfD close was correct", which was because nobody apart from you disagreed with the close. You are, I assume, not in fact referring to that but to this discussion on the original AfD closer's talk page, in which the closer said that the consensus was that the article was (guess what?) a "POVFORK" (their words) of Islam in Australia. Please do not misrepresent previous discussions. Frickeg (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete and Salt. Quite a few primary sources used, giving away the fact that this is a work of WP:SYNTH AlanS''talk 08:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

1  In the last four months since the previous article-deletion, a number of 'issues' have occurred in Australia. These 'issues' are categorised / obfuscated using a variety of descriptors. However there is one connector linking all of these issues, that being Militant Islam.
 * Strong retain:

2 There is a growing awareness (further raised by the recent events in France) for the need to speak openly in responding and dealing with these issues.

3  One of Wikipedia's foundational principles is WP:NOTCENSORED. Most arguments for the deletion of this article are variations of CENSORSHIP.

4  A section  'Criticisms / Controversy'  (now included, but ultimately integrated WP:CSECTION ) is a more enlightened method to handle the differing elements of this subject. BruceSpider (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

5  And as precedents Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism & Militant Islam BruceSpider (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * point 1. sounds like original research created out of synthesis of available material. For this to be a valid article editors need to provide reliable sources that cover the topic and clearly define the terms.
 * point 2. yes I agree there is a growing awareness in speaking openly about what is occurring, but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; WP:FORUM
 * point 3. yes not censored is a fundamental principle, but that applies to the information we present not how its presented which set out by other policies such as WP:NPOV
 * the link in point 4 for says all of reasons for this article not being appropriate An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. and sets out how to address the negative perspective within a balanced article..
 * There many outlets available which are designed specifically for the publication of original thought and personal perspectives, Wikipedia is a tertiary source what is being put forth here is still at primary source stage it needs go through that then be reported/discussed/opinionated about by secondary sources at which point it will become a valid topic for Wikipedia. Gnangarra 12:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On careful examination, none of those 'rebuttal' points are particularly strong.  For instance, the lead-article in the SMH today,  These crimes have everything to do with Islam   - this being a, "reported/discussed/opinionated [article] by secondary sources at which point it will become a valid topic for Wikipedia".   Lots of those articles available.  Another alternative is to re-focus this Wiki article as, Controversy regarding Militant Islam in Australia.     Plenty of,   'Controversy over  . . .'  type entries in this Wiki encyclopaedia BruceSpider (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the lead article, by which you mean Paul Sheehan's opinion piece. As for "controversy" articles, these are specifically discouraged (see WP:CSECTION). Frickeg (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete and salt This is just a repeat of Radical Islam in Australia with even weaker content and less coherent sourcing. The reasons for deleting that article - viewable at Articles for deletion/Radical Islam in Australia - are the same as deleting this one, and then some. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you claim it is a repeat article when in fact it is entirely new material on a different (though similar) subject. Don't judge based on the title. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - it exists, but not sure how many radical Muslims there are down under. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it exists, and is notable enough to be mentioned in a number of scholarly and news sources, why would you vote to delete? I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

''It is in fact a different article. The subject matter (as well as the material) is not the same.'' ok, I accept that it might not be the same, but your other comments require responding to..
 * Merge' and redirect to Terrorism in Australia as almost all recent incidents have been overlapping between the two articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to reply to 2nd part of nomination


 *  "Radical Islam" is essentially fundamentalist Islam (interpretations, and the organisations that promote it)  I am not sure what extent you actually know anything about islam, there are within islam major ruptures between sunni and shia, and also other lesser groups, which in turn could specifically aim at the groups that they are either fighting with or at difference with as being 'radical' - there is no single unitary context into which such a simplistic analysis can be made, even more so in an online encyclopedia. There is no such thing as 'radical islam' or 'fundamentalist islam' - there are interpretations of what particular forms of behaviour within certain groups - there can be radicals in shia and in sunni interpretations.  The dumbing down of the media to be able to get simplistic handles on something like radical or fundamentalist - without carefull qualification leaves such a label totally unstuitable for an encyclopedia.  If you dont like this - try reading the headers on categories related to terrorism - leads to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels  - and your explanations to date leave you open to being reverted because of your over-use and interpretations that are closer to contentious rather than encyclopediac.


 * "Militant Islam" includes Islamic militias and other groups involved in violence regardless of their interpretation of Islam (be it conservative or radical - I dont particularly want to fill this Afd with further comment questioning your personal interpretations, but I really think you need to think carefully about editing wikipedia if you always think you have the right answer.  Otherwise you might get close to WP:SOAPBOX areas.


 * So the important thing about contributing to wikipedia is to understand its a bit more important for an online community created encyclopedia - really there can be a range of things that need careful 'adjustments' rather than WP:POINT scoring. It would be well worth  understanding some of the more important issues about Afd - if you dont like the outcome, you can always ask for a review, without either quizzing editors who make comment here.  Remember, tread carefully, take care and consider that consensus might not be there for your editing, and requires a certain level of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILity.  cheers satusuro 13:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems to have generated plenty of media coverage in the wake of the attacks and is spawning further academic and government discussion. Juno (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge, reliably sourced content, and neutrally word it, either in the article Terrorism in Australia or Islam in Australia. Subject falls within the scope of either of those subjects, and verified and neutrally worded content would add WP:BALANCE to either of those articles (which ever the community believes is the most appropriate target).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Issues with merging, the editors of both articles don't want to focus on this topic. They have expressed in the past that the sections on militant Islam wrecks the overall structure of those articles, so it would probably benefit the balance of those pages to keep the current page and minimise references to militant Islam on their pages. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2015 (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.