Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharia patrols (London)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharia patrols (London)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Quite a minor WP:NOTNEWS story and part of a continuing (possibly racist) campaign by various accounts against Anjem Choudary, as anyone reading them will see. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - Per reasons above. Badly sourced and undue weight. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to Black Kite for pointing out what a racist I am.  What happened to WP:GNG? This is a story that has gone on for over a year now and has been covered by the likes of the Telegraph and (for you wacky online-only kids) the Huff Post. We demand coverage in secondary sources. We have such. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Andy. Sorry if an article which is sourced to many reliable sources with significant coverage from early 2013 to present offends some editors, or if an article about Moslems in London patrolling  streets to impose Sharia law might reflect badly on someone's religion, but it satisfies WP:N and overcomes the hurdle of WP:NOTNEWS.  Edison (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG per ongoing news coverage over a significant period of time (over a year). The topic does not qualify for a WP:NOTNEWS deletion due to this ongoing significant coverage that the topic has received. NorthAmerica1000 03:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic had very significant international coverage last year when the story broke and the topic has continued to appear regularly in the news ever since, most notably when the trials of the members took place. There was further international coverage by ABC just two weeks ago and it was in the Mail within the last week too so no shortage of ongoing coverage either. The article does still require significant expansion, for example there's no mention of the "landmark" nature of the ASBO imposed on those convicted, and it would be useful to mention wider issues and other incidents such as the "“Sharia-controlled zone" posters that were installed earlier. Anyway, the fact that it's far from complete isn't grounds for deletion. If people are struggling to find sources, then search for "Muslim Patrol" as that is the more common term the media use for this topic.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - After giving this some thought, I am changing my vote from Strong delete to Weak delete. Although it doesn't seem to be a particularly large group of Muslims who did take part in the Sharia patrols, the extremity of the situation did draw media attention towards them. The article would definitely need rewriting if it does remain though. The way it is written currently makes the incidents look much larger and more significant than the events that took place, as if it were an ongoing series of frequent attacks. As it stands, the article is weak, but it does portray an incident that received some press coverage. I also think that, despite the significant amount of right wing editors who are putting edits towards the article, and the not small potential of them expressing racist feelings in doing so, this should not in any way affect whether the article itself should exist or not --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As per reasons given by Northamerica1000 - above all WP:GNG. Alfietucker (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to add, the link to Choudary was made by me, and is entirely due to the evidence provided by the reliable sources I discovered when checking/filling in details in this article. The claim by the OP that this is "part of a continuing (possibly racist) campaign by various accounts against Anjem Choudary" is patently absurd: I had made no edits whatsoever to the Choudary article until I started getting involved with this one. I would remind that editor to please assume good faith - taking the line "guilty until proven innocent" is not the way to open dialogue with other editors. Alfietucker (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above - Clearly passes GNG. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. 75* 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on that? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:09, 2 May 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.