Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Islam Open Tasks/POV articles

Template:Islam Open Tasks/POV articles

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This page being used in blatant violation of advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states:
 * It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. 

This page is clearly a tacit invitation to members of the Wikipedia "Muslim guild" to go to those articles listed on the page to push the guild's POV. What seems to occurs is that when a Muslim guild member deems an Islam related article to not meet the desired POV he posts the link to solicit other members of the Muslim guild and like minded editors to can go there and dominate the editorial process through sheer force of numbers.--CltFn 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you produce evidence of users soliciting other users for canvassing "votes"? &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my contention that the article linked on Template:Islam Open Tasks/POV articles have been listed for the explicit purpose of rallying like minded editors to go to them as a group to steer the editorial process of those pages towards a tacitly implied POV shared by users of this page. I would argue that the title of the page itself is sufficient evidence --CltFn 13:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should take WikiProject Deletion sorting to WP:MFD as well? It pays to assume good faith. Nothing can be done without evidence. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You used the same exact description on:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion_%28second_nomination%29
 * Muslim Guild doesn't even exist anymore.


 * Keep per my arguments every other time you have used that nomination statement. -Amark moo! 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I strongly disagree with your response to Nearly Headless Nick's question above.  Just because it has a title that looks bad doesn't mean the content is quite so negative.  I applaud the efforts of this WikiProject: they're tackling a huge issue on the 'Pedia (namely the POV in many articles).  We all know that the average (EN) Wikipedian editor is a caucasian American male.  As such, articles on Islam may very well have huge POV issues.  These editors, who are Muslim or know a lot about the subject, are merely attempting to correct some of these POVs.  How is that POV-pushing?  I see no evidence that they have violated any Wiki policy (including, perhaps most notably, WP:NPOV) in tackling some of these articles.  Additionally, I would remind you (again) that even if they were to attempt to do something through "sheer force of numbers," it would not succeed.  A CheckUser would be run, their actions reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV, and they would probably be blocked, perhaps even permanently.  Do not doubt the ability and shrewdness of EN's many admins.  Members of the Islam WikiProject have not, however, been doing anything through "sheer force of numbers."  As far as I can tell, what really happens is that one editor sees an article that does not adhere to WP:NPOV and posts the link so others can help correct it.  I haven't seen any instances of more than two editors working on the same article at the same time.  CltFn, I'm sorry to say that I believe this may be a bad-faith nom.  You nominate WikiProject Islam subpages for deletion with unsettling frequency and have been the subject of at least one RFC for your behavior as regards bad faith edits, many of which are to Islam-related articles.  Srose   (talk)  18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless or until misuse is shown. Projects have the right to keep a watchlist of articles, absent evidence of misuse. Herostratus 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename. Stating that the articles have "POV problems" isn't very subtle.Proabivouac 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In an attempt at transparency, I believe the closing admin should take a look at this now-deleted RfC for Proabivouac. (A closing admin will be able to see certain subheaders which contain relevant information.)  Srose   (talk)  18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment why?, the RFC is absolutely irrelevant to this MFD process.--CltFn 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The user seems to be involved with many articles on this Template.  Srose  (talk)  13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the other times this discussion has come up. rename to "Neutrality disputes" if the current title poses a problem. CltFn was indef banned a while ago for exhausting community patience for this kind of behaviour. as a last chance, he was unbanned on the condition that he would reform his behaviour. since he has returned, however, i am not convinced that has been the case at all.  ITAQALLAH   10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah, I don't understand what that has to do with this discussion, as he was not banned "for this kind of behavior." There's nothing wrong with nomming templates for deletion. Similarly, to Srose above. You might score a point or two today, but at the cost of poisoning of the atmosphere.Proabivouac 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on Itaqallah's remarks, I do not believe this is the place to express vindictiveness towards fellow wikipedia editors .--CltFn 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 *  Srose  (talk)  13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It is important for us to know which articles have POV disputes, so we can hix them. This templete serves a very ligitiment purpose for wiki project Islam.--Sefringle 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Sefringle--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --Aminz 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE Moved from WP:MFD to Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1, wrong jurisdiction. All !votes above should be kept, but the timeline for considering this page should be extended to that given to newly listed TFD's. —  xaosflux  Talk  02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We need to see a demonstration of actual inappropriate behaviour before we start deleting what could otherwise be helpful tools for editors.  Let's assume good faith here.  -/- Warren 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep The list at present contains primarily articles with POV disputes between editors of different orientations within Islam. DGG 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Srose. Dfrg.msc  23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We need this. Even the non-Muslims such as me. { Slash -|- Talk } 06:56, 8 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.