Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Islam

it doesn't seem befitting for an encyclopedia!!!!

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to Islam
To line up proofs/critic against one of the worlds largest religions is not fitting for an encyclopedia. Delete. Apparantly, according to the article's creator, this isn't a recreation of the VFD'd Criticism of Islam, which was a POV fork of Islamophobia. I'm not convinced.
 * Delete This topic is an insult to muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.188.182.14 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 August 2005
 * Only edit. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup The topic is actually quite legit, though the article needs some major tidying up. "Islamophobia" deserved to be deleted, as that term is incorrect, but, now that it has been placed under a more correct name, I think we should give it a chance.--Frag 14:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Islamophobia should be merged to this article? (i.e. a "merge" vote)     ( ! | ? | * ) 15:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Islamophobia has not moved anywhere, and is not related to this VfD. --Zeno of Elea 17:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I meant to refer to Criticism of Islam and not Islamophobia --Frag 20:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, my mistake was due to the fact that the original version of the nomination read "that this isn't a recreation of Islamophobia, which was VFDed previously." When he corrected his mistake, my vote then appeared to be incorrectly referring to articles. I apologize. --Frag


 * Close VfD - this is right on the heels of VfD of Criticism of Islam... which this is basically a part of... and, well I'd probably vote keep then but this VfD now is only going to cause problems. gren グレン 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Either this article is the same as Criticism of Islam, in which case it is recreation of VFD'd content and should be speedy deleted. Or it is new content, which has not been VFD'd before, and thus the VFD can't be prematurely closed.     ( ! | ? | * )
 * It is new content same concept. Eh, it's not like I'll ever oppose this concept in itself... just sometimes when it has horrible content.  changing vote... Keep  ... Ril, do you think that this as a concept should not exist?gren グレン 10:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But the concept is already discussed at Islamophobia for which this constitutes a POV fork.     ( ! | ? | * ) 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --Zeno of Elea 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course. -- Karl Meier 17:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this doesn't look like a POV fork of Islamophobia or an NPOV fork for that matter. The subject matter is completely different. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing wrong with opposition to islam Towel401 17:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not a soapbox.     ( ! | ? | * ) 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see what is wrong with it. It seems completely unrelated to Islamophobia. Barneygumble 18:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. dab (&#5839;) 20:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP We are a free thinking world and must remain so regardless of opposition from radical extremists
 * unsigned edit by 82.148.43.93 (zero prior edits)     ( ! | ? | * ) 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep ObsidianOrder 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; encyclopedic. &mdash; RJH 16:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs a lot of work (where is zoroastrian & sassanid resistance to islamic cultural incursion, for example), but the topic is entirely legit. Dottore So 20:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * user has only 36 prior edits (several are to Strawman)     ( ! | ? | * ) 13:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep There's nothing wrong with it. [BWK] 19:08, August 12, 2005
 * Unsigned by User:194.203.153.209, who has only 6 prior edits     ( ! | ? | * ) 13:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject is notable and informative. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 21:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete For a balanced discussion on all religions we would have to add similar articles for other religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Bahaism etc. It would be better to disperse the contents of this article to other related articles. Currently the only other article similar to one is Criticism of Mormanism.
 * unsigned edit by 129.21.175.241 who has 2 prior edits    ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful. Good reference --219.111.147.48 04:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * user has only 5 prior edits     ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Because no one should be allowed to say bad things about ISLAM.
 * unsigned edit by strawman 210.49.202.35 who has zero prior edits      ( ! | ? | * ) 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It would be absurd to delete this.   &mdash;thames 02:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good, balanced article. ProhibitOnions 17:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks like it's straight out of some polemical site.
 * DELETE!!!! the site dont seeme to fit in a encyclpedia
 * DELETE, its not fitting to have these votes and it is oppressing to the muslims.
 * GOSH, there are an awfully large number of strawman sockpuppets aren't there.     ( ! | ? | * ) 23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless you want to delete Islamophobia along with this article. Brownman40 00:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I see nothing wrong with this article at all. Marskell 12:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV-trap, and only legit if we have also articles on "Opposition to Christianity", "Opposition to Hinduism" etcpp. Until we have, this smells badly like a part of the "Islamophobia" edit war. -- AlexR 01:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it deserves deletion at all. Criticism of any religion should be valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.125.229.162 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 16 August 2005
 * Nine previous edits from this address. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The lack of such articles for other religions is irrelevant. People are free to add them if they feel the need/desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.199.131 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 August 2005
 * Only edit. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a magnet for Islamophobes (just as this VfD is a magnet for sock-puppets and oddballs, on both sides).  There's nothing in the article that couldn't be either deleted as PoV or included in less tendentious articles. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The existense of criticism of any religion or ideology can be a relevant topic. Wikipedia's coverage of Islam would be lacking were this facet not part of the broader coverage. Jsnell 22:50, 17 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.