Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderate Shia


 * 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Moderate Shia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another violation of No original research by Striver, a long-dormant user who was a great editor but notorious for subtle POV pushing and OR. I'm not even sure if Notability here as the term simple appears to be made up; the only support for its existence is one single comment on a random Sunni website; there is no historical literature using the term and it isn't even a neologism because neither Sunni nor Shi'a websites or books in the modern era seem to use this term. I don't think it's even real. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: no evidence for this being an existent, let alone significant, branch of Islam. Sources insufficient. Even if real, it would appear to be an original synthesis of sources - wholly breaching WP:OR. BethNaught (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Moderate keep The Muslims I Know states: "If you search the words “moderate Muslim” today you will get more than 8 million hits on the internet." This article is difficult to read, as it appears to be a pro and con between two diverse sects, and at present seems to have no sources for the last half.  It focuses on a religious point and counterpoint.  That being said, I think there is potential.  There is interest in this topic.  It assumes the reader has some basic knowledge of the split in Islam.  Taking that for granted, it is rather like walking into the middle of murder mystery movie, so that being lost and left behind is endemic to its structure.  It also needs to be brought into the sectarian world. I've added a couple of non-Muslim non-Arabic citations that should do that. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:7&6=thirteen, I don't think you've quite gotten what the article is. The sources you've added, such as this one, are simply stories discussing whether Shi'ites or Sunnis are more moderate than the other, and the "further reading" just contains stuff about what moderate Islam is. That would be more in line with Liberal movements within Islam.
 * This article is totally different; it's supposedly about a term used by Sunnis to denote Shi'a they like but the "Sunni views" section doesn't establish this; one modern day website used the term "moderate" in passing while the two historical sources don't use it at all. I am not finding any Sunnis using the term Moderate Shi'a as an actual thing. The "Shi'a views" section claims that Shi'ites reject the term but provides no sources, further giving the impression that non even Shi'ites have heard of this supposed term.
 * Now your recent edits were good but I think they're to the wrong article, because this article has nothing to do with branding populations as moderate or extreme; this article is more specific than that. The factuality/existence of the term is still unproven and seems clearly a result of OR on the part of the creator. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand all of the points you made, including the lack of sources in the Shia view. The question of doctrinal purity and the characterization of one or the other as "moderate" or not is inherent in the schism, and is part of the reason why these groups do or don't get along.  The BBC Channel 4 article discusses this. As I indicated, the lack of contextual history (which the BBC article helps provide) is a major lapse in the article.  I would think that can be remedied.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, User:7&6=thirteen, you still don't get it. The article has no relevance to what you're talking about. The opening line says: "According to some, a moderate Shi'a is a term for the Salaf who loved Ali." This is about a term, not a schism. And this isn't about whether the term is notable; it's about whether it's real or just something the creator made up. Do people use this term "Moderate Shia" or not? This is the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is about a schism and about the associated nomenclature. The term "moderate" is ambiguous, and is used in context to make various points.
 * You have your opinion, and I have mine. The BBC says: "However, according to Dr Kersten, it is not as simple as that. "It is overly easy to make that kind of distinction," he said. "If you talk about Iran (where Shia are dominant), western opinion doesn't view them as the moderate type. Some of the language that comes out of Iran definitely doesn't fit that view.  It is more political than anything else. Hezbollah, for example, represents a long-term repressed Shia minority - and they have certainly been becoming more beligerent. It would be overly easy to say Shias are more moderate than Sunnis. You can find extreme elements on both sides of the equation."
 * One can cavil over the way the word "moderate" is juxtaposed to the word "Shia", or about the meaning of the word "moderate". Sorry that you fail to see that this source uses the concepts. It will appear that you aren't convincing me, and I am not convincing you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:7&amp;6=thirteen, you are an excellent editor in good standing and with certainly a stronger contribution history than mine - and I absolutely mean that, and I apologize that perhaps my tone isn't as respectful as it should be - but I don't understand how you can say "It is about a schism and about the associated nomenclature" when the opening line of this article is "a moderate Shi'a is a term." We have an article about the schism and it's Shia–Sunni relations. This article is about a term which I allege is simply fake - even the sources you have don't use the term "Moderate Shia." It's like creating an article about "Awesome Atheists." I know many atheists are awesome for example, but that doesn't mean "Awesome Atheists" is a real term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are not reliable sources. Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 <hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete There is a lack of sources, and article has unverified claims. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk  <sub style="margin-left:-5.35ex"> ✉ email  12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a concept that should be discussed in the article on Shia Islam if anywhere. We shouldn't have "moderate", "radical" and "conservative" articles about religious movements in general, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment My ignorance on the subject is profound, but one thing I can say is that this article, in its current form, does not help to lessen it. After reading it, I am still not sure whether the term 'Moderate Shia' is a description of a group in existence today or of a small, specific group of people alive in the seventh and eighth centuries.  The lead seems to describe a Sunni term for the specific group of people, but the article later wanders into comparing how moderate Sunni and Shia are today in the 'Other views' section.  The intervening section consists of 'Sunni views', a collection of longish quotes which are pretty nearly meaningless to anyone not intimately familiar with the subject, with no attempt to put them into context, describe what they mean to the subject or synthesize them into a coherent discussion; and 'Shi'a view', which is rather more comprehensible but entirely unsourced.  My feeling is that this should be deleted - because a scholar search turns up no results indicating the second meaning ("the Salaf who loved Ali") and the first meaning is just "Shia who are also moderate." GoldenRing (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2014 (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.