Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The "Wahhabi" Myth


 * 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. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing individual opinions.  Sandstein  05:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Wahhabi" Myth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Opinion piece that was never finished. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as improperly sourced synthesis, and possibly Merge any properly sourced statements with Wahhabi . -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entire premise of this page violates the neutral point of view and possibly the rule against no original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the other comments above. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not neutral and not an obviously notable myth. The writing is also terrible... that can be fixed with editing, but given the first two, there's no point. Hairhorn (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Overview comment The creator of the article David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) has generated a lot of heated discussion at Talk:Wahhabi (and associated pages) and this is what the Myth article is really all about. He feels very strongly that the Wahhabi article is inaccurate and biased, and that the very term "Wahhabi" is actually a derogatory term used by opponents (ie saying there are no Wahhabi, it's a myth, whilst the Ultra-Cons respond that this is an attempt by the Wahhabi to cover up), invalidating the Wahhabi article as it currently stands. He also feels that the Western press is similarly biased -- and this may well be: the UN said as much and that ref was provided on the Wahhabi talk page -- so one suggestion was that editors look to scholarly sources in preference to press and right wing Conservative sources.
 * Wahhabi is really in need of an expert in the subject who can also mediate.
 * However, David is going about this the wrong way, deleting the Wahhabi lead and replacing it with things like "Wahhabi is a derogatory term used by opponents ..." for example, and creating the Myth opinion piece in his frustration. I seem to recall him creating "The Wahhabi Myth", an article based on the book of the same name (his main source), which was deleted prior to this, and I did show him how to properly reference that book, which he has not done.  Esowteric + Talk  09:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unnecessary, POV-based fork of Wahhabi. If the author can improve the latter article, with facts rather than emotional outbursts, he should be encouraged to do so. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason I created this article is because nothing is happening with the wahhabi article and all the while, this misguided knwoledge is constantly being propagated. I have demonstrably shown using authentic sources that the Terrorist groups are actually waging wars AGAINST the "wahhabi's" (proper name is salafi's).

As no one is doing anything and i have repeatedly posted in the discussion pages then I thought I would catch your attention by creating a page. I donot accept this page shoudl not have been created though as it is a phenominan that is occurring in teh world and I can prove it with sources and so i stand by the fact that the only people who wish to delete this article are peple opposed to salafi Islam. Leave the politics and sectarianism out of this. If you want me to stop creating such articles then get someone to actually intermediate and loko at the evidences I provide. You do nto post the article "nigger" as a person originating from africa, you have it as a derogatory word. Not as wahhabi is also a derogatory word, it shoudl be described as such. I find teh article offensive because it defines "wahhabi" as an acceptable name to call people. The sight has obviously many POV pushers and I dont see the same harshness applied to sufi's. How would you feel if I described sufism under the title "Ahlul Bid'ah" (people of innovation). You wouldn't like it woudl you. If you wish to discuss the salafi movement, do it in teh salafi article. Put wahhabi as an offensive term and give a link to salafi if people wish to know who the salafi's are and what they believe. We need intermediation and NOW. If not I will continue to create such articles in order to fight this POV being pushed in wikipedia. If we do not call ourselves "Wahhabi" then it is derogatary and yet no one is addressing thsi insulting POV being pushed on wikipedia.

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

David.Baratheon (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: repeated vandalism to Wahhabi, Talk:Wahhabi and Salafi have been taken to the admin noticeboard.  Esowteric + Talk  16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * VERY Strong Delete Article is confusing and not clear It seems it is just POV of the Wahabi author. Shabiha (t) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete there is no way this is appropriate for Wikipedia in any sense.Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Creating a separate article is not a suitable way to resolve a content dispute  Chzz  ►  21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. policy delete reason: WP:OR  Chzz  ►  03:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's clear that the creator of this article believes that "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term. The question is whether this is a common belief, or just the opinion of a small group. If most of the people who are known as "Wahhabis" believe that "Wahhabi" is an accurate term to describe the school or movement within Salafi Islam that they follow, then we should not ban the term from Wikipedia. Looking at Google Books, I notice that the word "Wahhabi" is used (with no suggestion that it might be offensive) in books published by major university presses such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press, and Columbia University Press. I do not believe that these respected publishers would knowingly use derogatory terms in their books as though they were normal words, so I have to assume that the word "Wahhabi" is not commonly known to be offensive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Metropolitan90. This controversy is already discussed at length, and from many viewpoints in the article, addressing many of the author's concerns:


 * Delete - smacks of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:FORK, WP:SOAP, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV-fork and an (incomplete) essay, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete as per everyone but article creator. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2009 (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.