WikiIslam:Articles or Categories for Deletion/Resolved Deletions

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
< WikiIslam:Articles or Categories for Deletion
Revision as of 19:13, 27 April 2013 by Sahab (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

All completed WikiIslam:Articles or Categories for Deletion discussions can be viewed here.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.

Theistic atheism

Result was delete, after discussion with the author and consensus since this term does not exist anywhere outside. --Whale (talk/contribs) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

Not sure this is a real concept. I have a hunch it doesn't exist.--Wanderer 22:18, 25 June 2007 (PDT)

  • Delete: I agree I dont see this being defined anywhere, not on Wikipedia too. Seems like a contradiction like "a square ball". --Whale talk contribs 06:53, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
And if I say that I am an theistic atheist my self, doesn't theistic atheism still not exist ? Robertto 12:40, 27 June 2007 (PDT)
Ok well, Roberto, do you believe in God or no? If you beleive he exists, then you're not an athiest. --Whale talk contribs 14:46, 27 June 2007 (PDT)

Various redirects

Result was delete, this is bad browsing experience for the reasons mentioned below. --Whale (talk/contribs) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

This is about the redirects Fribble just created. I dont think its a good idea to create redirects like Nick Berg (not to mention they dont work as well as I just found out). The reason for that is that [[w:Nick Berg|Nick Berg]] creates this: Nick Berg, which is different in color from Nick Berg. The different shade of the color makes it distinguishable and tells the reader that this is an article on Wikipedia. I'll look into creating a template or a button which makes it easier to create [[w:]] kinds of links. --Whale talk contribs 07:05, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

  • Delete redirects were probably created while the articles were there, but now are deleted, so redirects to dead pages should be deleted as they are on wikipedia.--Wanderer 14:58, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Comment: Fribble, also see this policy page on Sourcewatch for redirects. They dont have guidelines to create redirects like the one you linked below ([1]). In my opinion, its poor browsing experience to go through that redirect. Its enough for the visitor that Wikipedia articles are just different in color. Like I said infact, having a redirect like that gives the wrong impression to the reader that the link will go to an article in WikiIslam. --Whale (talk/contribs) 06:28, 29 June 2007 (PDT)


Result was delete, this is confusing misleading category for the reasons mentioned below and now we have a Site map page now anyway which is a better way to browse the site. --Whale (talk/contribs) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

All articles here are related to Islam. This category is not needed. --Whale talk contribs 18:54, 21 June 2007 (PDT)

I don't know of any other way to browse all articles related to Islam except by using the search box.--Fribble 23:07, 25 June 2007 (PDT)
I agree with Fribble. How about a category "New Articles"? Perhaps there should be more 8narrow) categories Anyway, there should be a hierarchical menu for easy surfing. Akira 00:32, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
The Islam category misleads in that, it makes people think there are articles in categories other than Islam too, which is not true. We could have some type of "Site index" where all the topics are listed in a tree fashion and we could give that a link on the left menu. How's that? --Whale talk contribs 06:41, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
That is fine. We need some sort of site map for browsing.--Fribble 15:40, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
Ok then looks like everyone agree to delete this category? I'll try to start off a site map as soon as I have some time. The advantage of that site map is that we can make it as navigational as we want it to be, something which is not possible in categories. --Whale talk contribs 19:31, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

Wikipedia articles

Result was delete, after debate and making of a policy which forbids copies of Wikipedia articles for good reasons mentioned by Selfworm here. --Whale (talk/contribs) 08:21, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

All the 73 articles with the Wikipedia will be speedy deleted according to policy. There was an ongoing debate here but there's really no need for debate as this is now a decided policy. If you want to show a Wikipedia article, use the [[w:Article|LinkText]] format. Edit tools for making this format have been provided now as well to make it easier to make this kind of link where needed. --Whale (talk/contribs) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (PDT)


Result was Keep; Roberto brough in a reference that justifies the article

This is another non-existent term contributed by Roberto, who I have just asked to stop contributing here because of his almost impossible to understand english as well as all the original research that just makes us look silly. There are no 3rd party references for this term. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:02, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

Fobomanie. Link is placed in the article.Robertto 01:05, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
I'll accept this one for now, now that you gave the link. --Whale (talk/contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (PDT)

Revelation religion

Result: Delete; nothing useful in this article or it would have been merged to revelation --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Another term by Roberto, non-existent english phrase. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (PDT) --> "openbaringsgodsdienst" Robertto 01:06, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
That article has been written none other than you, with no references either. This is your own term. WikiIslam or even Wikipedia is not a place to define your own terms as you see them. If anything, this should be merged into the page below.--Whale (talk/contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
If it was realy a not existing term wikipedia should have deleted is. So dont worry. Robertto 14:16, 1 July 2007 (PDT)


Result, Keep after some fine tuning and taking out material by Roberto. --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Another creation of Roberto, this is a term that better exists in Wikipedia. Currently its a hodge-podge half cooked poorly constructed article that makes us look bad. If anyone sees more stuff from Roberto, please list it here. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:32, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

There should also be islam without the "revelations" of Mohammed ??????????? Robertto 01:09, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
"if anyone sees more stuff from Robertto". Do you know that on the mainpage there is no "users portal" and so no one can find this page Robertto 01:14, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
There's a Site map link which links there and the recent changes and there's people who know about this page. Make a spell check (e.g. critism, criticism) and improve the grammar on this page.--Whale (talk/contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (PDT)


Result was Keep after some fixes and additional hadith --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Another page by Roberto, explaining one verse from the Quran. Are we going to have articles on "Nose" and "ear" too? There's nothing significant in Islam to create a seperate page on Sleep. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

If there should be something even ridicule about nose in the Quran ? Qu'oranic view of embryology is also mentioned either ! Robertto 01:11, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
Ok, now that I'm looking at it, it seems ok, but its really still very small. There must be other verses or hadiths on 'Sleep'. --Whale (talk/contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2007 (PDT)
Its not the hadith but the quoran. I don't believe there are more verses about "the sleep and the death". I think that Muhammed only told one time only something stupid. Robertto 14:21, 1 July 2007 (PDT)


Result was delete; self-explanatory term created by Roberto --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Another page by Roberto. Everyone knows what anti-Judaism is. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

Theo van Gogh

Result was keep after clean up by others --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Page by Roberto, full of bad english again. Its better to just delete this page than to try to fix it. In the mean while, we can link to Wikipedia's article there, which is enough. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:14, 30 June 2007 (PDT)

Michael Persinger

Result was delete, Roberto made false claims in this article and there's nothing there to keep after this claim is taken out.--Whale (talk/contribs) 18:38, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Another page by Roberto, has some original research. Michael P. did no specific research on Islam or Muhammad and if we take that out, this page has no place on WikiIslam, at least until a better stub can be made specially in relation to its relevance to Islam. --Whale (talk/contribs) 16:32, 30 June 2007 (PDT)


Result was speedy delete, since we have a current policy against copies of Wikipedia articles anyway.

If we don't have any wikipedia articles, it makes no sense to have the wikipedia template.--Wanderer 21:39, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

I agree, deleted now. Thanks! --Whale (talk/contribs) 21:58, 5 July 2007 (PDT)

Category:Victims of Islam

Result was no consensus (might be nominated again later if needed) . --Whale (talk/contribs) 18:29, 24 July 2007 (PDT)

This category is very subjective, I'm not sure where its going to be used. We could say that all Muslims are the victims of Islam so this category is not needed. --Whale talk contribs 18:54, 21 June 2007 (PDT)

  • Delete Empty category. Was deleted on wikipedia for similar reasons as nomination.--Wanderer 20:32, 22 June 2007 (PDT)
  • Keep If all article in it weren't deleted, then it wouldn't be empty.--Fribble 22:36, 25 June 2007 (PDT)
Ppl always talk about victims of Nazism[2][3][4], Communism[5][6], etc. This category has the potential to include a staggering number of articles. We need to have the courage to keep it. The articles like Kim Sun-il have to be developed.--Fribble 22:43, 25 June 2007 (PDT)
What kind of victim are they? If they were killed, we could have something like "People killed by Islamist terrorists". Victims of Islam is too broad and doesnt make it clear what kind of victims they were and in what sense. You would do better with having more specific categories. Either that, or you should make this all clear on the category page. A non-muslim who is persecuted in a Muslim country for blasphemy could also be termed as a victim of Islam and so on. Fribble, you could also create a page which says "Vistims of Islam" and place Nick berg and everyone else there. That could be a separate article, but a page that looks like this Nick Berg doesnt look like nice because the redirect doesnt work. --Whale talk contribs 06:37, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
No way! The U.S. government doesn't classify Imam Khamenei and many others who have ordered assassinations as Islamic terrorists.--Fribble 15:44, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
There is no problem with pages like Ali Dashti that link to Wikipedia. See Ayatollah Khomeini at Source Watch.--Fribble 15:47, 26 June 2007 (PDT)
I've explained the rationale for not having such redirects. The Khomienie redirect must be a mistake they made. Anyway after you've made your page description for that category, it looks better now. I guess we'll see how it goes or if others have any comments. --Whale talk contribs 19:44, 26 June 2007 (PDT)

What Islamic Civilization?

Result was Keep; no valid reason provided to justify deletion. --Sahabah (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2013 (PST)