Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgil Goode and the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress


 * 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 merge all to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. But very selectively, please, and try to cut nonessential content - that's already a rather large article. Sandstein 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Virgil Goode and the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Oh my. Although these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia per se, common sense tells us that these articles are incredibly unnecessary, unwieldy and overwhelmingly useless; in short, unsalvageable cruft. There is already an article on this topic here, which is also very crufty but is salvageable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar problems with excessive cruft:

Hemlock Martinis 06:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - The subject is covered more than adequately in Ellison's article. We do not need articles on every individual pundit's reaction to the so-called "controversy" that Ellison didn't want to swear on a Bible. I'm tempted to label all of these articles bad faith efforts to slam Ellison. Otto4711 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually, upon reading the article, it seems to be pro-Ellison, anti-Goode (who raised the furor). At least according to this article, the controversy seems to stem from Goode's complaint, not so much Ellison's use of the Quaran / Koran) --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Keith Ellison should have an article, the original controversy merits an article, but not all these granddaughter articles from Keith Ellison. There is a line between Wikipedia being comprehensive and an editor not being able to write concisely to the point where it becomes a weakness and hindrance. The line has been crossed too many times here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Just keep it to the one topic, please. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress, merge the rest into that. Is there seriously no more efficient way of titling this? Crufty, but it would get tricky to fairly explain the full situation (Muslim wants to use the Koran, some hick from Virginia doesn't like that so much, furor, etc) within the confines of a single section - and the Keith Ellison (politician) article is already pretty lengthy to begin with (67KB - bigger than the Beatles!! Hey, maybe I should start List of Wikipedia Articles Larger than that of the Beatles? Backing away, now) --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. For the record, I didn't nominate Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 07:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed - my eyes got lost in the jungle of text. See below for "new" vote. --Action Jackson IV 07:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Seems my eyes got lost in the jungle of words in the nomination. Is there seriously no more efficient way of titling this? Anyway - crufty, but provides perspective, and some of it should be merged into the current article (58KB - not yet bigger than the Beatles, but with this merge it'll be a candidate for List of Wikipedia Articles Larger than that of the Beatles soon enough. --Action Jackson IV 07:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wrote most of these pages when I was a newbie and thought the goal of Wikipedia would be to contain the greatest depth of information possible. Like a library of all human knowledge, where you could find any details you could possibly want. I had thought that it would just be a matter of time before anyone seeking information would be best served coming to Wikipedia before going anywhere else. I'm over that now.--Wowaconia 08:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep the main article the others are excessive detail. ... DGG 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress is not nominated for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 07:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all - I like this AfDs opening line: "these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia." Well referenced article, clearly notable subject.  Done. - Peregrine Fisher 12:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, merge and edit down: we have a flood of excess data here. These pages are waaaaay too long; you can't sort out the information from the flood of quotes. Nonetheless these are well-sourced an on an encyclopedic topic. Find what should go in Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress; the rest to Wikiquote or delete. This just needs a huge heaping helping of editing. Alba 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge There's a lot of good stuff in here.  Admittedly too much.  But there's definitely more than a few things worth saving and merging into the Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress article.Chunky Rice 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever relevant and salvageable to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress and delete the rest. We want to convey information, not write a million books about minor incidents. That is something for Wiki-history if it exists Alf Photoman  21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. One integrated article should adequately cover this topic.  Elizmr 21:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Certainly the whole controversy is notable, it just doesn't need to be split over four articles. Natalie 01:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  08:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above.  ITAQALLAH   18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. All four articles and expand. Subject is relevant and important. Wikipedia must be kept from being an encyclopedia of shopping malls.Prester John 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge while the "incident" is notable (actually it wouldn't be notable except for people's reactions to it) we don't need lists of ever single person who weighed in on it. The main article is fine and can have select reactions. Koweja 02:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all as separate articles; we should always be aiming for complete, comprehensive coverage of notable subjects. This is a very rich level of detail&mdash;that's a good thing; we're trying to provide information here, remember. Let's be happy with growth instead of trying to lop off our own body parts. Everyking 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all as separate - Comprehensive, highly sourced, good work. Smee 09:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge with Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress ... which itself could do with being edited for conciseness. Tt 225 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above and shorten title.--Sefringle 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I see very little of real value in these side articles. Korny O&#39;Near 15:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're not looking for information on the subject. Someone who is might feel differently. Everyking 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, someone would have to wade through a ton of extraneous information just to get some substance. It's not about how much you can write, it's about how concisefully you can write it, and these articles are so overwhelmingly massive that conciseness is impossible, especially when you're dealing with extraneous stuff to begin with. Seriously, do we need individual articles for each of these responses to the incident? No, we don't. --Hemlock Martinis 22:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Summary style. Summaries and details are fully compatible within Wikipedia. To eliminate the details doesn't help those who want the summaries; it just hurts those who want the details. Everyking 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In theory that's true, but in this case I don't think the details about, to take one example, an extended argument between Ed Koch and Dennis Prager are something anyone wants to read. But that's just my opinion. Korny O&#39;Near 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment, but by all means have a discussion on the main talkpage (which is a better venue for merge discussions than AFD) on whether to merge these articles. My impression is that the articles are well-sourced and on a notable topic and controversy in U.S. politics history, and I am not altogether against detailed coverage of it, but several of the articles nominated bear resemblance to newspaper articles rather than encyclopedia articles. On the other hand, the main article is pretty long already, so some splitting off into side articles may well be appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the nomination: "these articles do not violate any written policy of Wikipedia per se". Although I find the articles unwieldy, I disagree with the nominator that they are unnecessary (especially not incredibly so) or useless (especially not overwhelmingly so).  At least some of the people who created these articles surely possessed some common sense.  That said, a merge of one or more of these articles to Qur'an oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress may be appropriate, but that is not a matter for AFD.  This is an issue about the appropriate organisation of content and, as such, should be confined to the articles' talk pages. -- Black Falcon 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that the writer lacked common sense, I just don't feel that these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. That's why I nominated these articles for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise that and didn't mean to suggest that your nomination was intended to insult the editors of the articles. However, I don't feel that "common sense" alone (i.e., without discussion on the talk page) can dictate what ought to be done in this case, and the disagreement above seems to support that view.  You raise a valid point that these articles may not need to exist separately, but (again) I feel that's an editorial issue suited for a talk page rather than AFD.  I am not opposed to content being merged from one into another and subsequently trimmed (or vice versa), but I do not believe simple deletion is an appropriate course of action in this case.  I hope this clarifies my position and the argument I'd intended to convey.  Cheers, Black Falcon 05:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Merge All. The topic is definitely attributable and notable but there needs to be one and only one article on this topic. The set of articles needs to be merged and the significant overlap eliminated. --Shirahadasha 06:06, 16 March 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.