Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy (2nd)


 * 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  keep. John254 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

we should not have "XXX controversy" articles, as they are inherently POV. Furthermore, this is going way over the top - we should not detail every statement the Pope makes. This is a prime example of WP:NOT - hardly anything has come of it 18 months along (at least what the sources say), and is better suited to be merged into the article about the person. Will (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: See old afd Will (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Do you actually think this might get deleted?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have an actual reason for voting Keep? Right now your comment is no nothing more than a blank Keep vote (i.e. it will basically be ignored by the closing admin).  TJ   Spyke   23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems you are proposing a merger. You should do this on the Talk page of the articles in question. --Dhartung | Talk 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a prime example of where NOT NEWS does not apply. Major international consequences, will long be remembered as a defining moment in his bio & probably will be quoted for centuries as a general intercultural attitude; this is the sort of thing that does make history. Thousands of worldwide sources. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Will's argument hardly strike me as exceedingly brilliant, especially for an article that had a previous AfD closed with a speedy keep. In particular, arguments like "we should not have "XXX controversy" articles, as they are inherently POV" will hardly convince anybody, as they are pretty fringe, as showed by the ease with which these articles pass AfD when they are well sourced and concerning resounding events. And attempts to liquidate it as past news won't be very successful either: these are the news articles,, a number of which are very current, like in the Independent here .--Aldux (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep This article discusses historical fact. Encyclopedias include historical facts.  Why try to censor this fact? Hmains (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (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.