Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavery and Islam

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE and recreate as redirect. Postdlf 00:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Slavery and Islam
Delete. This page is apparently a POV fork of the much older Islam and slavery article, likely created to get around the block placed on that article while disputes are resolved. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed. Gwk 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- essentially duplicates title by inverting it, hard to see that happening by accident. Seems like an attempt to evade editing block and avoid collaboration or NPOV discussions. BrandonYusufToropov 03:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. royblumy 05:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Human rights in the United States in hopes of creating matter-antimatter collision eliminating both articles and removing unsightly POV. -EDM 05:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islam and slavery, POV fork. (Also note that there is a Slavery in Abrahamic religions article as well.)  Dcarrano 05:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the content, then if possible, redirect this page title to the already established article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and redirect. as per BD2412. --Eliezer 11:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Islam and slavery so that people will be watching it and it won't happen again. gren 11:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. Axon 13:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested by gren - james gibbon  14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. &mdash; RJH 16:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge what is salvagable and redirect. --Briangotts 18:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete then Redirect.     19:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the above redirect votes mean the same thing - the content is not worth keeping in the redirect history. -- BD2412 talk 20:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Way too POV to keep. Xunflash 20:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect, per gren and BD. StopTheFiling 22:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect against recreation. POV fork. -Splash 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, then redirect per above. Sneaky naughty editors, these! Xoloz 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Islam and slavery. JamesBurns 04:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Islam and slavery. I oppose the attempt to whitewash articles about Islam in wikipedia though. 24.60.163.16 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect. Almafeta 07:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Islam and Slavery. Deleting without merging would be censorship. The islam and Slavery article is nothing but a bad apologia and whitewash, with very few facts and a lot of drivel about how Islam always "wanted" to abolish slavery - but didn't. Islamic states were major slave states and slave-raiding states (in Africa, and Europe) throughout their history, right up to the modern era.
 * The articles need to be merged. Both are very POV from opposite directions. --Xandar 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not "merge" the articles, but delete both, as none contain useeful information. I do not believe that an article concerning slavery and any religion can be useful as an encyclopedic article. The very nature of the subject makes it inevitable that it will be treated as something evangelizing/editorial/apologetic. See my notes on the talk page for Islam_and_slavery. --itpastorn 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Islam and Slavery. The disputed page is a strong POV against Islam but the Islam and Slavery page is the polar opposite, essentially Islamic propoganda, only a whitewash and quotes from Islamic books. It will be near impossible to create a NPOV article as Itpastorn has said. The only other potential is to create one page and give one half to the critics and one half to the apologetics. Barneygumble 17:18, 18 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.