Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Muslim view of Ali (3rd 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 delete. Consensus is that this doesn't need a separate article. The current material (some paragraphs about his portrayal in literature) could perhaps later be restored and merged to another article if there's consensus for that.  Sandstein  17:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-Muslim view of Ali
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At least 90% of the content here is identical to content found at Ali, so this article is an unnecessary duplicate. More than 80% just consist of block quotes, all of them also found at Ali. The intro makes no sense, and also seems to have been copied. If we remove the duplicate material, we're down to one or two sentences. Jeppiz (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The content needs to stay in an article somwhere. Either in this article, which has already survived two AfDs, or the Ali article, or both. The nominator is currently trying to delete the content from both articles. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Softlavender is correct I think the content needs to be edited to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:DUE (I'm not saying it all should be deleted), but that is a matter for later discussion. My point here is that we currently have one article that is identical to a section in another article, making it an unnecessary duplicate. Non-Muslim views on Ali is notable, and should be found on Wikipedia, but I think the article on Ali is the right place for that. And once again, it's all there already in Ali, so this AfD is simply about deleting a duplicate, not about deleting any content. Jeppiz (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your wholesale removal of the content from the Ali article 8 hours ago, and your subsequent talk page insistence on keeping it out, I am not finding that statement to be convincing. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I note that Softlavender has been stalking me across several pages and repeatedly misrepresented my comments. At ANI she claimed I had not notified a user, which I had. She claimed I had reverted an article three times, which I had not, and now she's here assuming bad faith about the nomination, ignoring that the article is a duplicate. Anyone can check the talk page at Ali, where I discuss how to best use the material, not to keep it out. We should have this section, and we should have it in one place. Jeppiz (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, I am not stalking you. This is an article you publicized on ANI, and you publicized Ali on this AfD nomination. And you're ignoring the fact that I have consistently agreed with your viewpoint on Muhammad's views on slavery (which you also publicized on ANI). At ANI I mistook your tag-teaming with the other editor as three deletions by you when only two were by you, and I noted that. I'm not ignoring the fact that this article in part duplicates some material contained in part of another article, I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not accurate. I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use, . Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed duplicate material once from Ali, then realized that that article was the proper place for it, not this one. As my talk page edits show, I've repeatedly stated we should have this material in one place (at Ali) and in proper format. You consistently misrepresent my concerns about the format as wanting to remove it all, even though I've exlained it repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , please don't use the word "stalking" lightly. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, my apologies. I was a bit exasperated that day when a user I don't remember ever having interacted with suddenly appeared in a number of talk pages to repeatedly ascribed me sinister motives, but I should have expressed myself differently. Jeppiz (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jeppiz. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fully sourced and notable topic. Has already passed two AfDs. This is feeling like a bad-faith nomination to me for reasons stated above. I'm actually trying to AGF as much as possible despite the edit-warring and tag-teaming on both articles, but the worst-case scenario is that for some reason the user is trying to suppress positive viewpoints on Ali or Islam. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above does not address the topic. As I explained, at length, the article is a duplicate. It's not about suppressing positive viewpoints, it's about not having an article that is identical to another one. Jeppiz (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing up the fact that instead of trying to resolve that situation you have been insisting that the material be removed from both locations. Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I have tried to initiate a discussion about which quotes to use, . Jeppiz (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And we have told you we are using all quotes, so can you stop disrupting the articles. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Jeppiz, you deleted the section entirely, started a talk page discussion to keep it out, and tagged the entire article with a POV tag and tagged the section with an UNDUE tag. Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. They are there for a reason, they are sourced content and Jeppiz is on a crusade against Ali for some unknown reasons and willing to cut lots of source content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Ivanov (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above user is the main champion of the article, but again does not address that this is a duplicate article. I'm not suggesting deleting the original, just the copy. Jeppiz (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the main champions because other users are not patrolling the article enough to point out their reasons. Previous attempt had garnered 5 or more people in the consensus. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last nomination results in no consensus, the first one is 9 years old. Perhaps it was not a duplicate back then? This nomination is for the situation in 2015, not 2006. If you and Softlavender would stop your regular WP:ABF against me and instead explain why we should have a duplicate article here? Jeppiz (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are assuming good faith to us???? Please you are hurting my stomach from laughing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to explain why we should have a duplicate article, that's all. Jeppiz (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a duplicate article Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up. The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason. Who selected the authors and quotes? Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims? There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors. As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section Ali, and should not exist. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 05:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes made up of the non-Muslim views of Ali. >The quotations are selected without any seeming rhyme or reason. They are selected based on the notability and knwoeldge of the author to Ali ibn Abi Talib. >Is "non-Muslim view of Ali" an object of scholarly study, rather than simply a hodgepodge of views of Ali by non-Muslims? It doesn't have to be an object of scholarly study to be featured in Wikipedia with references and sources. >There should be a scholarly review article which does the selecting and quoting, not random wikipedia editors. Why? These random editors is what helped create and made these pages flourish. That is the beauty of Wikipedia.> As it stands, the article is a virtual copy of the section Actually it's not you can look it by yourself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I never said that, nor implied that >Wikipedia makes articles about topics that exist, not topic it creates itself based on WP:SYNTH, except for some lists You mean your wikipedia? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to allegations: > The main issue for me is that the topic of the article seems to be made up.
 * "Why"? Because WP:NOR, of course. Wikipedia makes articles about topics that exist, not topic it creates itself based on WP:SYNTH, except for some lists. LjL (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * >"Why"? Because WP:NOR, of course.
 * Of course you didn't say that, I did. I mean the one Wikipedia with its policies and guidelines, such as the above-cited WP:NOR. Please stick to the topic of this article's deletion. LjL (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: As a user follows me around several articles assuming bad faith, I emphasize once again that I nominate this article because it's a complete duplicate of a section at Ali, something the user refuses to even acknowledge or discuss, instead insisting on discussing me. I would hope the AfD-discussion could be about this duplicate, and those who state keep could explain the rationale for having the same content in several places, instead of just saying "keep" and then make the whole argument about me. Jeppiz (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about me? Sir enough with the spreading of misinformation about me, I'm actually assuming you have good faith in deleting this article? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - this is basically just a gluing-together of quotations and constitutes a blatant WP:CFORK. It's not an article and, per title, shouldn't even be. Ali can and should keep whatever relevant content about the non-Muslim views on him there is (but I'm not suggesting to merge this article there, because this is nowhere near what any of that content should look like encyclopedically. I would suggest other similar AfDs for various "Non-Muslim view of ..." articles. LjL (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At first I would have said  merge  whatever is salvagable to Ali. In the current situation however, the article is merely a warning to the reader followed by a list of loosely associated quotations, which Wikipedia is not. This quotation list should be moved to Wikiquote or be deleted . - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment HyperGaruda, maybe what you are saying is true. We can move it to Wikiquote Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete While an articles with a topic such as Historicity of Ali are appropriate, separating the views of scholars and historians according to whether they were Muslim or non-Muslim is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: The subject is notable and it deserves to have a stand alone article. Reading the comments, I saw that some users have questioned the title and I should say in response that some titles are descriptive and so you can't find the exactly similar term in sources (see WP:NDESC). --Mhhossein (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why you're trying to show it's notable by linking to the exact phrase on Google Search? LjL (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The results show how the the article have been the discussed in sources. Mhhossein (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "sources" you mean (rather than WP:RS) "random websites including Wikipedia"... LjL (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you expect books or articles entirely devoted to this subject I think there are few! but I could find some persian reliable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the Ali should move to this sub-article. This is the result of the former discussions like Talk:Ali/Archive 6 with @User:MezzoMezzo.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The same goes for that subsection as for this article: a clear WP:NOTQUOTE (#1). LjL (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At present, it is a poor article. however, we can the current situation is not enough reason to delete the article based on WP:ARTN. Therefor, we can move the quotations to wikiquote and improve the article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * PS comment. In its current situation, the article is fully based on primary sources, i.e. the views themselves. Without some secondary source that actually discusses various non-Muslim perceptions of Ali, the whole thing is WP:SYNTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The current article is notable and sourced with valid references. If the quotations is main issue, It is better move them to Wikiquote.Saff V. (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean don't keep? Because you know, Wikiquote is a separate site from Wikipedia. It would mean it's not being kept here. LjL (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈discuss 02:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTEWORTHY. SpyButeo (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete There are far too many of these POV-fork articles on Islam. Content forking says "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."--  Toddy1 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Forky POV-filled article on a subject that does not appear noteworthy and which consists almost entirely of OR-selected primary source quotes (mostly from 19thC works), quotes whose significance, given their lack of interpretation or context, it is impossible to assess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also think that this seemingly arbitrary (!) collection of quotes is inappropriate, and Wikipedia editors should not go around dividing opinions into positive and negative. Without secondary sourcing there is no topic; the only acceptable kind of source I see in the article is an article called "A Critical Survey of Modern Studies of Muhammad", but that's from 1963, it's not about Ali (directly), and the only thing it is used for is a critique of a Jesuit of the 19th/20th century who apparently had a holy contempt for Islam and said something about Ali. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , let me take a moment to try and address some of the points you made. The previous two AfDs closed as "no consensus" and it's hard to find fault with that--they are terrible AfDs without many valid arguments on either side (except "POV fork", which, I guess, is an easy accusation to make in many such cases). Besides, both discussions took place in 2006--nine years ago. On the other hand, I understand that one might think that we're trying to delete "positive" content here, but I think we will be better served with a better article, better title, better sourcing, better selection. Until we have a significant amount of material supported by secondary sources, I think we should make this article a redirect to the appropriate section in Ali. BTW, I just looked at that section (after looking at the back-and-forthing between and, and it's actually not that terrible. There's plenty of problems: that [Kahlil Gibran]] is "non-Muslim" isn't all that clear, and why the opinion of George Jordac is so notable is not clear. The bigger question is still, as far as I'm concerned, what "non-Muslim" means: I am not convinced that this is a simple matter. (The governor of my home state no doubt disagrees.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete This should be settled once and for all, perhaps even SALT. from the previous discussions I cans see that many of the keep votes just arbitrarily throw around words without linking any sources covering this in depth. Furthermore Kahlil Gibran is non-muslim? how did that happen? Also, what kind of non-muslim opinions are we going to put here? Can I put in the opinion of Herr Geert Wilder? OR Bill Maher? I would think that many obstacles would be raised on such an inclusion. To be frank this article survives AFD's because people huff and puff, but give no valid reasons for their keep votes. That should change. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I replaced irrelevant and improper information with the more suitable one. Please reconsider the issue.-- Seyyed(t-c) 08:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to "Depiction of Ali" or "Portrayal of Ali", regarding the current state of affairs. But let's face it, unlike a pronounced Shia or Sunni view, there just isn't a "non-Muslim view" (opinion) which has received significant coverage (read: discussion), so still a delete for "Non-Muslim view of Ali". - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * has totally changed the article (which is totally OK by me - the new version is much improved). But I still think that this should not be a separate article. This could perhaps be included in the main article, it is not too long. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to Move the article to Depiction of Ali. The main article is too long and the current article can expand with this new title so that it includes Ali's depiction in Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Turkish, ... literature. -- Seyyed(t-c) 13:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That still risks being OR Synthesis, just like the current one (before it was stripped of its quotes). We have Ali in Muslim culture, Shia view of Ali and Sunni view of Ali - that should be sufficient since almost all other views will be non-faith based factual accounts or opinions about his historical importance, which are the sort of things that should be in the main article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 20 November 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.