Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical 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. Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Radical Islam in Australia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unredeemable POV mess. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response throwing "POV" accusations does not work in this instance to delete an article. Reliable sources were cited and some sections have been worked on by a number of editors to help keep it NPOV. If you point to a particular instance where the article represents "one side" then tag the section. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep & refine The page is might have specific sections requiring additional supplementary information to help balance the article, but in no way is it, as DroverWife alleges, an "unredeemable" mess. And this page will actually help WP editors on Islam in Australia page to help distinguish between major events concerning Australian Muslim community and minor fringe ones that can be relegated to its own page on fundamentalists. Thir creation of this page benifits everyone overall. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - If none of the material on this page would fly on Islam in Australia it shouldn't fly here. AlanS (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response the material "does fly" on the main page. The issue is only the amount of material on a separate topic (namely, Islamic radicalism, a recent trend) is taking away from the main article on Islam in Australia (covering 500 years). Editors on that page have noted the material is increasing in size. Hence the need for a seperate article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and refine The article provides an important reference-documentation of significant issues for both the Australian Islamic community and the Australian community generally. The issues raised are obviously contentious, but rather than just a simple deletion, this (new) article can be improved with the addition of a wider set of inputs.  Sam56mas (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC). The presentation of this new Wikipedia site does require refinement, but the issues covered should not be simply dismissed or just deleted away.  For instance the latest-breaking-news, radical-Islam impacts on Australia.  Position of the Australian Prime Minister.  Position of the Australian Justice Minister.   Position of Australian Muslim Groups..  Sam56mas (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Urm, that story about the PM refers to a (disgusting) incident in Iraq involving Iraqis and an American: clearly out of scope. The story about 'Australian Muslim groups' starts off by saying that these are the views of "leading members of the Muslim community", and so obviously are not the 'radicals' which this article is supposed to cover. The fact that you raise these stories as somehow being relevant to the topic of the article raises real questions with me about whether you're editing in good faith here, or are seeking to use Wikipedia to push your views. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't see why you have to attack a new editor as acting in bad faith. He added plenty of content, not all bad. Instead, as a more experienced editor, it would be in your interest to help him edit in a manner that is more NPOV. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT: the article doesn't seek to place the issue in context, and is a WP:POVFORK from the Islam in Australia article which violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Much of the content of the article is material which was rejected or disputed in the Islam in Australia article, and an obvious problem with this article is that there's no clear definition of what 'radical Islam' is, with many of the sources being claims in the tabloid media rather than sober analysis by actual experts on this topic. I just removed several claims which were cited to opinion articles by conservative columnists who are in no ways experts on the topic, as well as some claims about the views of a living person which weren't supported by the citation given: this was a clear violation of the core policy WP:BLP, and a blockable offence for whoever added it. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * strong delete the article is just a massive POV push by 2 editors, trying to paint Islamic culture as a massive problem. The term "radical" is incredibly subjective. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response That's a nice red herring. The page does not paint Islamic culture at all, but cites instances where radicalism appears a trend. I in fact have argued for moving some material from the main page (e.g. statements by radical clerics to help differentiate between the main Islamic community and culture in Australia and radical elements appearing only recently. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:POVFORK from Islam in Australia.--TM 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response WP:Fork only applies where the central coverage of a complete topic is being split onto two pages. In this case there is not even a section on radical Islam on the Islam in Australia page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE its also a WP:SYNTH the lead of the article has no association with the articles context, the sections in the body of the article have no direct association with each other except the implied religious connection. Gnangarra 10:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Response WP:NPOV hardly applies as a reason for deletion in this instance. Plenty of effort was made to keep language neutral, and additional edits further refined the article tone. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV does apply because radical is relative term that isnt clearly defined, the choice of lead which has no relation to the article content is intended to incite a bias and place Islam in a negative light only that is where the NPOV applies. Then use of unbalance(undue) and unrelated events(wynth) means the regardless of the use of a refined tone the article still fails to be presented from a nuetral point of view. Gnangarra 04:27, 27 August 2014 (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) 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems like a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. This may not be intentional on the part of the original article creator, but it's definitely a collection of news topics without any scholarly research tying them together. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment is this a case of WP:Idontlikeit? All the information is sourced from reliable news sources touching on a topic of concern to the Australian public. The photo of an Australian committing war raised concerns and awareness of growing radicalism and/or sympathy towards radicalism amongst some Australian Muslims. As per fork concerns, if anything, we should move all the tangential bits and pieces in Islam in Australia "Chronology" section on radical Muslim clerics to this page, replace all those bits and pieces with a single paragraph (titled "concerns over radicalism" or whatever) with a ||main|| redirect to this page. That way we can clean up the main Aussie Islam page from all those side bits. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Valid topic. The article may have some issues, but none of them insurmountable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * being a "valid" topic is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment scholarly sources on the topic:-study of terrorist network in Sydney (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19434472.2012.727096)-similar study of same group http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/364) The Australian govt's response to radical Islam in Australia by overhauling anti-terrorism laws, criticism of govt response. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100590950138) I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * TandF self disclaimer specifies the Society for Terrorism Research and our publisher Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content where as WP:RS requires Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Society for terrorism research isnt an independent 3rd party, and by its own admission it doesnt make any effort as to the accuracy of that which it publishes. Gnangarra 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't spot the non RS source there. Ignore and use the first and last only. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * actual the unreliable source is the first and last one, the second is a case study of a police investigation of one specific terrorist group and not Islam.. the involvement of members of that group was found to be the result of family influences Gnangarra 12:19, 26 August 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.