Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takfir

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept

Takfir
An incoherent and possibly nonsensical dictdef. &#10149;the Epopt 04:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An accurate and eminently expandable stub. Keep. - Mustafaa 06:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Google finds few pages that hint takfir is indeed a concept in Muslim jurisprudence. On the other hand, article reads like a nonsense and is not usable to someone who doesn't know the concept already. jni 06:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Takfir seems like a bad thing, so this sounds like an attack on Qutubism. Kappa 07:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs a lot of work, but the concept is potentially notable. Article is perfectly fine now, no reason to even think about deleting it. --Kelly Martin 08:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (updated Kelly Martin 19:01, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep. Though I'm no imam, this seems like a valid term. Cleduc 08:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would seem that Takfir is a verb denoting "to declare someone a kafir(non-believer). So, while this brief synopsis might be POV (by suggesting this is done without evidence to support it), it nonetheless could be a worthwhile concept to be further developed by future generations of Wikipedians --Rexrexilius 10:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but someone (not me) needs to improve it. Jeff Knaggs|Talk 15:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Stick a cleanup tag on it, if it doesn't get cleaned up within some reasonable time I'll vote for deletion. Currently it's not encyclopaedic. --fvw *  17:20, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cleaned up now. - 64.81.54.23 00:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, incoherent and un-encyclopaedia. Megan1967 02:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep makes perfect sense now. Kappa 04:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I will put some work in on it as well.Stirling Newberry 23:12, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) (oops)
 * Keep ~ 193.118.65.66 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~ (that was me ~ mlk &#9993; &#9836; 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~ )
 * redirect to kafir. possibly merge some stuff into it, although it is slightly incoherent. how did this get on VfD in the first place? dab (&#5839;) 17:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't attack other people's motives. Did you check the history to see what the article looked like at the time of the vfd listing?  RickK 22:35, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, no offense. But crappy article content is no reason for deletion. Only unsuitable article subjects are. dab (&#5839;) 14:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know whether you really believe that. If I were to write a nonsense article on an obscure topic, should the article should be preserved for however long it takes for someone to come along and write a real article? I don't think so, do you? With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. The article looks decent now. PMLF 05:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. Article's fine now.  Also note that if it's removed, something needs to go in excommunication. --Andrew 07:32, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.