Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharia in the United States


 * 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. There is agreement (even in the "keep" opinions) that the topic is notable but the current content is worthless. On that basis, I find that the argument for applying WP:TNT is more convincing, as the "keep" opinions do not articulate what if anything in the current article could be worth keeping. Of course, this deletion does not prevent the recreation of the article in a usable form. Any redirection is likewise an editorial decision.  Sandstein  05:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharia in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This looks like a blatant POV essay/thoughtpiece made up of OR - and it has unsourced claims like "some sources have alleged that certain judges at the state level have been handing out sentences based on Sharia Law."! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And the example case included is only supported by sensationalist news sources that use the word "Sharia" - there is no reliable source offered to support a claim that telling someone he should not have deliberately offended Muslims is an actual example of the implementation of Sharia law. And frontpagemag is not a reliable source when it comes to its opinion pieces. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A couple of other sources used in the article don't look reliable either - http://shariahinamericancourts.com/ appears to be an anti-Sharia advocacy site, and http://www.onenewsnow.com is a Christian site. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's not confuse validity with notability. The idea of sharia law being imposed in the US is a political bogeyman if ever there was one, but there's plenty of coverage of the topic, especially around stunts like Oklahoma's sharia ban. The article is in poor shape now, but revision is a better option than deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not opposed to a rewrite, but if we take out the blatantly POV material sourced to unreliable advocacy sites, and the unsourced claims, there would be nothing left of the current article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Ban on Sharia law per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. This would require a fundamental rewrite in order to be useful to the project.  I suggest drafting first, and once more sources are available (if they indeed exist), the article can be sourced more reliably.  The fact that none of this article's information is included in the main Sharia article also gives me pause.  Also, take a look at this article that we already have.  I still say delete rather than merge because there's almost nothing from this article that could reasonably be merged (since there aren't really any reliable sources).  Sleddog116 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and rewrite in favor of what BDD is proposing.--v/r - TP 20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and Merge Merge Ban on Sharia law into this article. In other words, Keep this article. Prachursharma (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say exactly the opposite would make more sense - delete this article for the reasons I've suggested, and then if there is anything relevant that can be sourced to reliable sources rather than to advocacy sites, add it to Ban on Sharia law. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Prachursharma, the author of this article, has now been indef blocked "for both creating an article with arguably anti-semitic tone, and then blatantly linking it to an anti-semitic attack page". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The arguments that the subject is discussed elsewhere and that this particular article is nothing more than a propaganda piece is persuasive. We don't have an article either on Martian landings in the United States, a subject with a great deal more press over the last century, and something about as likely to occur.   Ravenswing   21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can live with the article being deleted as is. I may write a better version myself, but I'm not going to do so today or anything. There really is something here. While the Martian metaphor is apt for, say, the fear that US courts will start mandating the hijab, the fact is sharia can be considered in a judicial opinion, the same way foreign legal systems can. But as I understand it, bans like Oklahoma's don't even allow for private contracts based on sharia, which makes a mockery of some very basic legal tenets in the name of this phantom menace. (tldr: My vote stands, but I'm amenable to deleting without prejudice.) --BDD (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The first few pages of Google discuss a plathora of different topics related to this article including: bans that have occurred in various states, anti-Sharia movements, Sharia laws being introduced to US constitution, how the sharia law is possibly relevant to US today, a discussion of why Sharia law should be the sole law in teh US (Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.). Not to mention all the stuff not even related to the laws themselves, but all the background info surrounding this: there are ___ Muslims living in the United states, and approx. ____ live under the sharia law. Some Christians are opposed to it because of __ while others ahev actually taken some good lifestyle tips from it. There is a lot of controv surrounding it..... Look, I don't know what I'm saying. I'm making it up on the spot. But the idea behind it works. And I think this is the sort of stuff we should be jam-packing the article with.--Coin945 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good argument for an article on the subject, but not this current article. It sounds to me like what you are effectively talking about is delete and start again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what I mean is for us to salvage all we can form the old article and add in all this great stuff. If nothing is salvagable, then technically you're right. But I wouldn't call it deletion and recreation. I'd just call it blanking the article and adding new information in the same edit.--Coin945 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of at least having an article to work with (otherwise it's unlikely anyone's going to even think of creating such an article), I'd say at the very very least, replace the article with a one-line stub. A list of some helpful sources in the talk page would also help. But I'm sure instead of chatting about this article, we can get straight to work and rebuild this (clearly notable) article.--Coin945 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not unsympathetic to that idea, but if we reduce it to the only supportable statement in the whole article, "Sharia in the United States is not currently permitted", then that says nothing more than is already at Ban on sharia law, and we'd have a clear WP:CSD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But I've already explained how, even after a preliminary search on google, I was able to find many sources for and against Sharia in US - both supporting and fearing it. I even found sources that merely describe the situation without picking sides. What made you think that we would possibly "reduce it to the only supportable statement[s]"? I've clearly demonstrated that there is much more out there so as to not leave us with a lopsided bias argument as the basis for an article.--Coin945 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about what's in the existing article, not about what's on Google. We are deciding whether or not to delete the existing article, not a possible future article that might be based on good sources - and we are not deciding whether or not the topic deserves an article. If you wish to rewrite it before this AfD concludes, that would be great, but until someone does, we must make our judgement on the current content - and in my view, there is not enough in the current article to make even a stub. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then, there's the intrinsic difference between the way you and I see AFDs. I entirely disagree with your view that "we are not deciding whether or not the topic deserves an article". I say that we are - that that's the whole purpose of AFD's. We are seeing if the concept itself is notable, regardless of the state of the actual article in its current form. All this time, the article could've been worked on to being it up to a good standard. All the people who pitched in to this convo could've spend their time doing tweaks and edits to help the article, but instead it has just been dismissed. I am completely opposed to this philosophy and always aim to remind people that AFD's are secondary to the main purpose of the discussions - to work out how best to rescue the articles. And I know you might say that AFD's aren't the place for articles in need of "rescuing" etc.. I've seen articles in dire need of help turned away from AFD because they don't 'belong' there, but the main point is that bringing certain article to people's attention through AFD is actually a catalyst for change (or at least it should be). Often, however, most of the time and creative energy is spent arguing whether or not the article should be kept... and if the topic is intrinsically notable and its just its current incarnation that's bad, then it's a real shame that so many people hopped past giving their 2 cents and not one person actually stayed long enough to help solve the actual problem. Actually sounds a lot like slacktivism to me..... It's late over here in Perth, but when I get a chance, I'll replace this article with a small stub, and I guess we'll go from there, because needlessly deleting a notable article is disruptive and annoying IMO.--Coin945 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles aren't "notable" - only their subjects are notable. And I think I am correct in my understanding that AfD is for discussing the deletion of an article based on its current contents, and not on the notability of its topic. We do not keep an article whose content violates Wikipedia policy, even if its topic is notable. But you are, of course, welcome to rewrite it, in which case we will move on to review what will then be a different article on the same topic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of where this unofficial philosophy is shown to be the best way to go:
 * Potential, not just current state - "Why deletion of articles with potential should be avoided: In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable and has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia. Deletion of a article can be one step backwards in creating an encyclopedic entry for a notable topic. It is frequently a better option to do one or more of the following: Mark the article as a valid stub, Bring the article to the attention of the relevant WikiProject, Add templates marking relevant issues with the article to readers and editors, Simply delete and clean the sections of an article causing a problem, such as copyright violations." (or even better, work on the article yourselves :D)
 * User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates - "The inclusionist is also adept at evaluating articles, not only on their current merits but future potential as well. When the inclusionist is confronted with a deletion debate and the article needs improvement, actively mentor those editors interested in the article in the ways it can be improved and saved. Take the time to re-write lead-ins, find and cite reliable sources, and suggest to interested editors other ways in which the article can be improved."
 * Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians/Members - "I am amazed by how many good (or potentially good) articles fall foul of PROD, SPEEDY and AFD and it seems that people not getting involved is what allows this to happen - "The only thing necessary for deletion is for good men to do nothing...""
 * Articles for deletion is not a war zone - "If you wish to argue for deletion: [Remember that] if an article is on a popular topic, it will tend to have secondary sources written about it and may have potential" --Coin945 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are all good guidelines - and I'd be happy to support anyone who wants to make this into a keepable article by the end of the 7 days. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Right-wing fear-mongering about something that does not and cannot exist isn't a notable or article-worthy topic. If anywhere, it deserves a short mention in Islamophobia. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice for recreating a completely different article - while theoretically, this might be a legitimate subject for an article, there is no way that you could get to that point and have anything left of the current version. nuke it and start fresh. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) present  the article has been nuked and started fresh - i am not convinced to !vote "keep", but i am no longer in the "delete" camp either. --  The Red Pen of Doom  01:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is a clear POV fearmongering essay and has major WP:CBALL issues. Maybe the article can be recreated with a more neutral point of view in future. --Artene50 (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete We need some WP:DYNAMITE to blow this article away so we might rewrite it. Canuck 89 (converse with me)  10:40, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ban on sharia law. Every point the nominator makes is well-taken, but it is also clear that a legitimate article could (and should) be written by editors more competent to address the legal issues and more willing to comply with BLP, RS, and npov requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's not a bad idea - I expect the actual legal status of Sharia in the US, with a properly sourced NPOV assessment of popular reaction, could make a valuable article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This page is a mess (created by a editor who has since been perma-banned.) I don't see anything here to really salvage; I could see an article being made on this topic, but this ain't it.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * note: the creator was indef blocked, not perma banned by the community -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep I think this is a proto-article that needs cleaning/expanding if it does not overlap other current articles on the same subject (need to look into that--if that were the case, I'd vote Delete/Merge). There is a considerable debate on the issues of Sharia Law in the American system.  There are reports that judges reference it (or may reference it) in cases now. We see honor killings in quiet American neighborhoods.  I think it's a valid article as long as it's not a doppelgaenger.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. A redirect to Ban on sharia law is unhelpful because that's not what someone searching on sharia in the US is looking for, while readers looking for information on observance of sharia in American Muslim communities will be at best ill-served by Islam in the United States, a poor redirect target at any rate because people looking for that will just go there first. There is at any rate no content in the current article after removing material from unreliable or unrelated sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Darn it, wikipedia has discovered the evil plot to have sharia take over the United States.  Which it already has..  In which case we should either move this to State Religion of the United States, or Ban on sharia law, take your pick.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on article change: Okay, so I'm not an expert on this topic or anything, and I'm not going to say that I gave the article justice, but I have now provided what I said I would - a small stub that shows the potential scope of the article. There are many arguments for and against, and this article has the potential of being very comprehensive. While I am not the man for the job, I am happy to do my little bit.--Coin945 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- While this topic could be nice to have (just as "Canon Law in the United States" or "Halakha in the United States" could be interesting), this version is pretty much useless. Better to start from the ground up that start from bigotry.  Of the five sources used:
 * 1. The Christian Science monitor is usually a reliable source, but this article misquotes the CSM piece in a rather POV way. The CSM piece explains how Sharia really has no effect on the US gov't, and really only affects Muslim Americans.
 * 2. The NYT is also usually a reliable source, but this article places undue weight on Newt Gingrich's quote without pointing out that he's objectively being a fearmongering blowhard there.
 * 3. The third source is plagiarized in this article. It also attempts to misquote the piece to make it appear legal precedent that judges cannot consider Sharia law when handling cases between Muslims.
 * 4. The fourth source is an anti-Islamic wordpress blog, not a reliable source by any means. That they do not cite the original news piece the blog presents clearly demonstrates that this article was created as a POV-pushing anti-Islamic piece.  (And no surprise, the original author has been banned for bigotry).
 * 5. The fifth source is a blog on a newspaper, and is misquoted to try and present Muslims as wanting to combine our secular government's rules with Sharia, rather than treat them as complimentary. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have made false assumptions regarding my edit. I in no way attempted to subvert this topic by misquoting, plagarizing and using non-notable sources. I merely tried to get something in the article, to replace the bad content that was in there before. If you are so opposed to my changes, then why don't you hop onto google and find some good sources to replace these ones. As I've said aboove, it's very easy to pick out the flaws in an article but very hard to actually go out there and fix it yourself. You have listed 5 things wrong wiht the article, and so far you have fixed none of them..... :/. BTW, I agree with you about the other 2 articles being interesting. - they should def be created :D.--Coin945 (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't see that those uses were you trying to improve the article. Always remember that books.google.com is your friend.  These appear promising:
 * Debating Sharia by K. Anna and J. Selby
 * The introduction to Sharia Incorporated by J. Otto discusses Sharia in America
 * Islamic Divorce in North America by J.MacFarlane
 * Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism by T. Banchoff
 * What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam by J. Esposito
 * Moving the Mountain by Imam F. Rauf
 * Muslim Communities in America by Y. Haddad
 * I'll go through them in a bit for select ideas, though the search appears to have taken them to good pages. I've also still got my textbooks from my Islamic cultures class that I might be able to dig up at some point.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, merge, or userfy - In my mind, I can see this could become a good article: there are plenty of possible sources that could have been found already, it's been debated widely in the media, and it's a notable fringe theory as shown by the thousands of possible reliable sources. The question isn't whether Sharia will likely become a threat to secularist Democracy and the common law in the United States, but whether it is being used as a meme or bogeyman to get ignorant people to pay attention to well-financed, serious political candidates for National and statewide office. The only real issues are, "Is this article such a ugly mess of a stub that we need to remove it from mainspace?", and "Do we need to blow it up and start from scratch?" Bearian (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Delete, as Roscelese above, after merging any useful content to Ban on sharia law, which is (broadly) what this article is actually about. Do not redirect the title to that article. An article called "Sharia in the United States" should tell the reader about how US Muslims conduct the arrangements described at Sharia. To redirect the title to the Ban article would be POV. It can be redirected to Islam in the United States as better than anything else. Sussexonian (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ban on sharia law, which is what this article is actually about. I don't think the redirect is a problem, since I doubt there's actually enough to say to justify an independent article on 'Sharia in the United States', without discussing the proposed and actual bans of it. Robofish (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep timely and notable Bellstarr (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2012 (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.