Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Catholic view of Muhammad


 * 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   redirect to Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. The content is still on the page history if anyone wishes to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic view of Muhammad

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

This article was created by a single-purpose editor attempting to push a point of view which was strongly anti-Islam. Do we want to keep and rewrite this article, or do we want to delete it? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. This might be partially my fault; I declined a speedy tag on this article, because I believed that it could be neutral and noted that it was sourced. However, it is clear that the author's intent was a criticism of Islam, and as such I do not believe a neutral version of this article is possible. No objections to a Speedy Deletion, given the context. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Am I missing something? If you moved this to something like Western view of Muhammad during the Middle Ages, and tagged it for NPOV clean up, would it really require deletion? I'm not advocating this article in its current state, and I see that the author has gotten himself indefinitely blocked, but I tend to think Ultraexactzz's initial instinct was correct. Certainly the article would need to be watched. . .  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Once you remove the part that's directly copied from Medieval Christian view of Muhammad, there isn't enough left to justify the article's existence without a full rewrite, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ok, I was missing something. I didn't realize that this was a fork from Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. Since that article treats this notable subject in a proper manner, I agree, a complete re-write would be needed to expand this to include perspectives from beyond the middle ages.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is notable history Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008
 * Oh, absolutely - which is why we have an article on the subject at Medieval Christian view of Muhammad. Is there anything here that isn't there? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Large parts of this are just a repetition of Medieval Christian view of Muhammad and the latter is more thorough and better titled. Edward321 (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful back into Medieval Christian view of Muhammad, Delete whatever's left. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Medieval Christian view of Muhammad, of which it is an un-needed content fork.  Sandstein   20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful & not already there into Medieval Christian.... DGG (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: Merge with Medieval Christian view of Muhammad - This is an important subject and needs one article, but we do not need two. This subject is about a POV: however, it is not a POV article, which would mean that it was pushing the author's POV.  No doubt the content is offensive to Islam, but Islam is equally offensive to true Christianity, due to its false view of the work of Jesus.  Now that statement is expressing my POV!  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 14 September 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.