Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion of Peace (2nd 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 of the debate was no consensus. NSL E (T+C) at 04:30 UTC (2006-05-25)

Religion of Peace
User:Raphael1 created an AfD that linked to an old AfD discussion. Fixing the mix-up. Andjam 04:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note Raphael1 previously tried PRODing it with the rationale "NOT a soapbox, and the terms sardonic usage is not notable (esp. outside the U.S.)". Andjam 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I'd just like to note, that the article currently has only two sentences, which are both unsourced. Raphael1 02:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Reyk  YO!  05:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Phrase has been used by a variety of notable people who have a variety of uses for the phrase, therefore not blogcruft as was claimed in the previous AfD discussion. Andjam 05:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep StuartH 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. More notable than its 1,890,000 google hits are its 285 google Scholar hits. They all appear to be relevant, and quite a few of them could be used as sources for the article. Jude (talk,email) 11:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. Most, if not all, of the Google scholar hits deal with the question "Is Islam a religion of peace?"  None of hits seemed to deal with the phrase as a sardonic neologism.  Ted 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've got 2,990,000 google hits on the phrase "military presence" (i.e. The White House stated "Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction." at the Atlantic Summit on March 16, 2003 ) and has 11,500 google Scholar hits. Anyway there is no article on "military presence" and IMHO no such article should be created. Raphael1 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? 1652186 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. Don't see this as blogcruft. Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just an adjective being applied to Islam, it isn't a 'thing' or a term to merit an article. Perhaps a mention in the Islam page? --Doc ask?  19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above -- Alphachimp  talk  19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jude. Widely used as a slur in the blogosphere. Definitely should be discussed here. -- JJay 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I undeleted the old article and it was just a slam; this one is sourced and reasonable. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please put it somewhere in a sandbox or in user space. I'd like to see the differences. Raphael1 20:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jude. Peter G Werner 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jude & Andjam. --Randy 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (or merge and redirect) per Doc. Keep I've become convinced of the notability of the phrase; Raphael adduces another notable phrase for which we'd all agree an article is not appropriate, but the two are distinct inasmuch military presence could never be more than dicdef (or, in any case, could simply be explicative as to the use of the phrase) whilst the locution here is notable for certain connotations and in view of its tropish currency. A merge might be in order (to Criticisms of Islam, most probably), but I think the unique history of the term and the dueling meanings ascribed to it would better be described in a stand-alone article.  Joe 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily true, that military presence only qualifies as dicdef. There's a lot of material one could write about different kinds of military presence (military presence in the home country, military presence in a war, military presence in occupation. Examples like Syrian military presence in Lebanon, US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) The same applies to the phrase "go to war" (9,980,000 google hits): "Well, I hope we don't have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq." GW Bush on the March 6, 2003 . Or what about "military action" (9,750,000 google hits)? ("Military action was now seen as inevitable." Sir Richard Dearlove on July 23, 2002 ) Raphael1 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's in use, it's verifiable, fine. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a stupid term, but in use. Lankiveil 23:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If its mainly just used a slur by idiots on blogs, it's not encyclopedic and should not be included in WP Bwithh 03:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Bwithh Ted 06:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOR, ad for a website, no evidence that this term has any currency. JFW | T@lk  09:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. 1652186 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I'd just like to note, that the article currently has more than two sentences, which are all referenced. 1652186 17:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your third reference violates External links, therefore the second sentence is still unsourced. Raphael1 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable phrase  Cyde↔Weys  18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:Raphael1 and Bwithh. Google cannot be used as a tool of justification. It is simply because the fact that many of the search results use the phrase 'religion of peace' by its real meaning and many other times for other religions. Not ensyclopedic. Resid Gulerdem 06:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV tool. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable phrase in current politics. - CNichols 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable recent mediaspeak. &#0151; JEREMY 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Pretty notable alright. Couldn't the last reference needed thing simple have thereligionofpeace.com listed as a ref? They are critics after all, and making fun of the moniker. Homestarmy 03:00, 25 May 2006 (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.