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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justification of Terrorism in Islam

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads a bit like an essay. Not likely to become neutral. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete - POV essay, even the title uses the subjective term "terrorism" to describe several kinds of militant or military action listed in the article; original research per WP:NOR with large amounts of synthesis per WP:SYNTHESIS. MuffledThud (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be improved to prevent deletion? How to add a NPOV?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2009
~~Keep seems like there are quite a bit of sources that could be used here. AFD is not a cleanup.~~ Delete There's too many problems here. Article isn't going to be saved anyway. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the npov template as there is no talk page to it to justify the template. Also I don't see any NPOV issues here. The article just state facts and quotes. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored the POV tag, and added a few more. It's one thing to criticize Muhammad for allowing the accidental killing of children, but it's quite another to then call accidental killings "terrorism". Opinions on terrorism of a tiny minority of Muslims are also cited here, such as quotes from Osama Bin Laden, Omar Bakri, with the implication in the title that since they call themselves Muslims, then "Islam" is justifying terrorism. Zakir Naik is clearly mocking the use of the word "terrorist", arguing that " A policeman is a terrorist for the robber.", but the article then conflates the two senses used of the word to imply that Naik supports terrorism in the same way that Bin Laden does. MuffledThud (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just making myself clear, I know Islam (as a religion) and Muslims (as people) are peaceful and aren't terrorists, and that a select few spoil it for others. Just saying it so that people don't think that I'm a stereotype. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. am sure we can edit this and ad a NPV. also this has some nice info. and has got all the sourcing.i will try edit improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs)
Delete. Pretty severe POV and Essay issues. The sourcing is also pretty bad. There might be an entry in this topic somewhere, but it looks nothing like this. Hairhorn (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would like to remind people here that AFD is not a cleanup TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think all that needs to be changed is the title and the "way its written" not sourcing. I think the title should be changed. to "justifcation of Islamic Terrorism" or terrorist juistifcation of terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it has already been noted above that AFD is not a cleanup. But cleanup is not all that's required here, as has also already been noted above. I can find no sources cited here that don't already exists in Islamic terrorism (which is also heavily tagged for bias, inaccuracy and WP:NOR) and Justification for terrorism, which is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justification for terrorism following these recent edits by User:Admit-the-truth (creator of this article) and User:86.18.223.124, who seem to have unusually similar writing styles and article interests. Note recent comment by User:86.18.223.124: [1]: "damn thought i wud get away with it...", after getting caught trying to delete this AFD listing from the log. This looks an awful lot like defensive forking of bad edits to a new article. MuffledThud (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why should this be deleted, it is because some people might find it offensive i bet? If it gets deleted for that reason i really dont no what to say--188.221.108.172 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contains verifiable sources--86.18.223.124 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.