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 keep. W.marsh 19:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another unlikely stub/pov fork from Ed Poor. Nom'd for AFD on the 21st by 82.55.199.200 (talk · contribs), Ed Poor rv'd the AFD tag and added the merge tag listing Religious intolerance as the target, but made no effort to merge the two since. On his original AFD notice User:82.55.199.200 wrote: "This page was created merely to have another link on Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, and only contains what few scraps of information the initiator could think of on the spur of the moment" which I think sums it up nicely. FeloniousMonk 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • FALSE: It was not an AFD tag removed (that would be against the rules, as FM knows. It was the dated prod tag, which specifically permits removal.

• Comment Did not Ed Poor used to be a bureaucrat? I might be crazy, but I feel like I've seen some POV pushing from him recently. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm right but confused about why. -- Kicking222 02:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He resigned that position some time ago, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor. Then there was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v._Ed_Poor. For the more recent issues, you'd need to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2. FeloniousMonk 02:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FeloniousMonk. --Mysmartmouth 02:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not going for delete or keep either way but I suspect that a general article about this topic could be written if one took the time. In fact, forced conversions have happened even in religions that one does not even associate with prosyletizing. This might be a good start if people have the time or inclination to work on it and NPOV it. JoshuaZ 03:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with JoshuaZ -- this seems to be an encyclopedic topic (see, e.g., History_of_the_Jews_in_Spain#Forced_conversions), and I'm leery of deleting it just because it's a stub. TheronJ 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 03:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definite POV fork. •Jim62sch• 09:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep We don't delete articles just because they are potentially contentious. And this topic has one hell of a history! Yes, the article needs fleshing out, but that is no reason to delete it. Heck, I'd place money on this article outlasting the article on the Pope's comments. JeffBurdges 11:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Real subject, as you can read for yourself at Requerimiento. Gazpacho 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a real subject, even if Uncle Ed did write the first version of the article. It's an important subject, too. It's kinda weird that we're keeping "POV forks" when loony conspiracymongers, wargamers, and standard online crazies write them (note the 9/11 controlled demolition nonsense surviving Afd) but not when guys with religious motives write them, even though those are better document. And not as wrongheaded. VivianDarkbloom 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That may be more of an indication that the 9/11 cranks are just better organized and able to force things into no-consensus keeps and I'm not sure everyone would agree that they are any more "loony" than the religious cases (I'm inclined to think that Ed is completely sane(having strong POV doesn't make you loony), if that counts for anything) but this whole matter gets very close to an NPA issue. 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tag to expand.--Húsönd 21:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research.--Glendoremus 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC) oops--wrong topic.[reply]

• Keep As usual, FeloniousMonk merely (1) asserts that the current article is a POV fork without giving a single reason but (2) refers to previous "POV fork votes" which he has won as if it had a bearing. It only shows that FM doesn't want to see any spin-off articles which clarify anything. Another example of anti-religious POV pushing, abuse of process, etc. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several Wikipedia articles refer to forced conversion: [1]

Thought. Wouldn't it be a good idea to raise this on Wikipedia Project Countering Systemic Bias in Religion? As for articles linking to forced conversion that is because links have been added recently by the main author of this page. Editors of those articles probably don't realise that it is a new page or that there are discussions about deletion or merger. Itsmejudith 19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - forced conversion is notable.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no idea re POV forks or such issues, but in isolation, this topic is clearly encyclopaedic and sufficiently meritorious so as to warrant an article. Badgerpatrol 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, this article is unbalanced enough to be called non-NPOV. But no, it isn't unbalanced enough to be deleted. This topic is perfectly encyclopedic, and there are enough sources to write a good article. Put ((NPOV)) on it, work hard to bring it to neutrality, but don't delete. MaxSem 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A documented article, asserting its importance of a real phenomenem. Also there's no evidence of a merge discussion. JASpencer 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is completely biased and portraying only one side of the picture, and there is very little hope to improve it. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But poor articles on notable subjects should be rewritten, not deleted. Badgerpatrol 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know if this is actually elsewhere but the topic is extremely significant, and of course the article needs to be expanded, not deleted. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand so that the Islam section doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. The subject of the article has been an important force in world history. Kla'quot 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Expand and improve. --Richard 03:50, 6 October 2006 (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.