Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social rights in Islam


 * 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 no consensus. A Train take the 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Social rights in Islam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Anything relevant in this article has already been presented in other articles like Five Pillars of Islam. What is presented is not sourced and therefore is unverifiable. Sefringle 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Per nom, contains no sources and is unverifiable. This article's title and content do not match. The title implies a discussion of social rights, whereas the article only describes responsibilities. An article bearing a title with such broad implications (affecting a faith group of more than 1 billion people across 1,400 years of history) should be researched and well sourced from the outset. This article is a pin cushion for vandals and detracts from the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. -- Aylahs (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 18:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems like a POV fork. Also unsourced (as stated above). Walton monarchist89 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep IMHO this is an important issue that warrants an article. The current article is a stub, and I agree what there is is not very promising, but I would give it a chance to develop in a more promising direction Arnoutf 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While the subject is interesting, and an article could be written about it, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't just hold out hope someone will fix the article eventually. If it's a notable subject, someone can write a brand new (and properly sourced) article in the future, then add it to Wikipedia. -- Kesh 23:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not like when we kill the articles when they are premature. The topic is valid and there are many other article on the same lines for example Prisoners rights in Islam, Animal welfare in Islam, Children's rights in Islam, Social rights in Islam and so on. Give few months time and if the article does not improve then we will delete it. (I will support deletion then). --- ALM 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * well then again, the creater of the article did nominate it for deletion himeslf earlier and has continuously blanked the page. [see here]--Sefringle 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The articles that you mentioned are similarly impoverished and serve as examples of why this article should be deleted. Given the scope of their topics and the clear lack of quality, they should also be rewritten or purged from wikipedia. While the topics themselves have merit, the articles lack research and credible sources, and in their current state they are likely to be a source of misinformation. This article is headed down the same path. -- Aylahs (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments That why I am saying that give some time to develop it. So that we can work on it. Do not kill those articles right away. Do not bite people around. Do not be hostile towards others. There is material available and we know about it. Give some time to develop those articles. Give another AFD after few months and then we will see. --- ALM 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How long should we wait? I've seen articles survive an AfD for just that reason, and then stay unchanged for a year. Which is why I cite WP:CRYSTAL in these situations. If the article can be saved, it should be done within the scope of this AfD. The burden is on those who maintain the article to show it is notable and verifiable. If that can't be done by now, the article should be deleted and someone can rewrite it later with more sources. It's best to write an article like this in your User space until it has enough references to survive an AfD, then move it to mainspace. -- Kesh 21:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep has the potential. --Aminz 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that article needs to be re-written and expand, but article itself has potention, as Aminz said.  TruthSpreader reply 11:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - not enough reason to delete this article.Bless sins 16:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation. This article is poorly written and not sourced so it has to go.  If there is a better article to be written, then let somebody write it and re-create it.  --Richard 07:51, 1 February 2007 (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.