Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of science and engineering in the Islamic world


 * 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. MuZemike 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of science and engineering in the Islamic world

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not think this can be saved by editing. Please see the discussion here; There are a great many problems with this article. The main reason to delete is that it does not present a "timeline" of related events. J8079s (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_modern_Muslim_scientists_and_engineers
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world
 * Keep Two-hundred and sixty-five citations, and that is the objection? Who said that all the events in a timeline have to be related?  In a timeline of the 1960s, would we insist on some common thread between John Glenn, the JFK assassination, Vietnam and Woodstock?  Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is a fascinating article with hundreds of correct references. What is there not to like? Warrah (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments from the other deleted articles don't apply here, and the history of scientific advances from the Islamic world is definitely a noteworthy topic. -- Ja Ga  talk  23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice article. Argument for deletion fails because the events in the timeline clearly are related. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia pseudo-history at its best. Tons of references cited which actually do not support the contention, evidence and scholarly opinions to the contrary are systematically (?) omitted. All looks nice and well on the surface, but a bit scratching immediately exposes dozens of false and exaggerated claims. Globes were already invented by the Greeks (small surprise, since they were the first to discover the spherical shape of the earth); so were public libraries, as the cartographic grid was already known by the time of Ptolemy, the earliest bridge dam in Shustar was actually built by Roman prisoners of war around 260/270 AD, using Roman hydraulic engineering. The water turbine is already in evidence for 4th c. AD Roman Africa, etc. etc. The list is endless. Keep the article, because the army of footnotes look so nice, but don't wonder at more and more readers leaving Wikipedia for Google Books instead of putting up with the ethnocentric/ religio-centric bullshit piling up high here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, an offer: How many footnotes in the article need to be proven wrong, one-sided, misinterpreted, taken out of context, exaggerated, outdated and outright wrong to have the whole article deleted? In percentage: 10%, 20%, 30%, more? Put your money where your mouth is and give a benchmark and some editors one to two weeks time. Then you'll see how hollow much of its contents actually are. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:30, 23 October 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.