Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Muslims in CIA World Factbook


 * The page creator speaks: The Admin in this case, though I am sure with the best intentions, has made the common mistake that the temporary creation of this sub-page was a feeble attempt to assert my own POV. Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Here is the statement I put at the top of the page:


 * This temporary page was created to bring consensus to the ISLAM BY COUNTRY article. It is not a POVFORK. This page may turn into a spin off since the main article is already so large. However, it was created to show proposed changes, initiate dialogue, and bring a level of neutrality to an article rife with strife and summary additions. This article is uncategorized and nowiki tags have been added as well.


 * As you can see, I did my best to alert people to the reason for this temporary creation. I am afraid, however, that no one gave me the benefit of the doubt--because this page was reported for AFD less than two minutes after it was created.  Is that a record?  I'm sure I couldn't possibly had very much info on the page by that time.  Speaking of info, I can safely assume nobody but myself has actually combed through it.  If they had, they would have noticed that, aside from the first 6 inches of the article...the rest of the article had nothing to do with Islam, Muslims or the CIA.  It was all about Buddhists.  That is because I copied the tables from another page in order to use them as a example for modifying the Islam by Country page.  It seems the individuals above, who have voted for deletion, didn't notice that as well.


 * In a way I am thankful this AFD came up. I learned something new.  I was unaware of the ability to userfy until someone mentioned it.  I'm not averse to doing that.  It is quite possible this page could be recreated later if we decide to turn it into a spin-off.  I am willing to have this page speedily deleted unless one of the other contributors objects.  For heaven's sake, even the temporary name I came up for this sub-page should have been a sign something was afoot.  Forgive me, but for some reason, looking back on the name, I find myself laughing.


 * This page, however, is not a deliberate POVFORK. This page does not attempt to circumvent consensus on the main article. Neither was this an attempt to assert my POV over a NPOV.  If there would have been a simple review of the main discussion page notes, by the initiating AFD Admin, before he came to his conclusion, he would have realized I am--quite literally--the lone voice repeatedly calling for consensus.  If you look at the history of the article, you will find most all of the changes are made by individuals who have never engaged in discussion.  My hope was that by creating a page like this, a place for proposed changes...it might actually motivate people to engage in consensus.  Call me hopeful.  From the discussion page you will see that Islam by Country has never enjoyed a time of stability.  Again, call me hopeful, but it was my dream that this page would become the verbal battleground for ideas, and leave changes to the main page to only those elements which all have come to an agreement on.  Thereby making the main article more reliable, more NPOV and more stable.


 * People, I cannot believe this page has been labeled POVFORK. Wikipedia's very specific standard is that nothing is to be marked as a POVFORK except in cases of extreme vandalism ( Fork).  So someone made a good natured mistake.  Where is the benefit of the doubt here?  Did no one think to make a remark on the Discussion page before trying to give it the axe?  What has it been?  Seven hours since this site was marked for AFD?  BTW, Admin Sandstein, I have to apologize. The deletion of the original AFD code was unintentional.  It was posted it in the midst of a edit I was making and things just got really screwed up.


 * In summary, this page does not meet the criteria for deletion.
 * 1. This is not a duplicated article.
 * 2. It was not created to be a stand-alone article.
 * 3. This page was not created to circumvent an argument.
 * 4. Noone has made specific allegations of NPOV violations.
 * 5. Noone has made specific allegations of balance issues.
 * 6. Noone has claimed "ownership" of the article.
 * 7. Noone has presented proof that the creation of this article was done in bad faith.
 * 8. This page in not available to be searched, as these pages should be, it's off the scope.


 * What has happened is...
 * 1. With illegal Forks being created all the time, it was easy to mistake this side page as a deliberate Fork.
 * 2. Some people have forgotten to assume I acted in Good Faith.
 * 3. Noone took the time to ask me what was going on before marking it for AFD, two minutes after creation.
 * 4. Noone was concerned enough to actually post anything on the discussion page (not even 7 hours later).
 * 5. The Admin was just doing what good Admin's do, trying to enforce the rules. Unfortunately, in this case, he mistakened it for a fork.


 * To consider this a Fork means you have to assume an awful lot, especially in light of the posted disclaimer. Thanks for hearing me out.


 * (TS Brumwell 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks. Still, draft revisions of articles do belong in user space or in talk space, not in article space. There, they are considered forks. See WP:UP. Sandstein 06:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)