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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on the talk page, this article inherently violates WP:SYN, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What a mess! There's no sense of what the word "modern" means (eg entries from the 1500s), no coheisive sense of "Muslim world" (eg Jewish and other non-Muslim entries, entries from US and other such nations), and no sense of what "inventions" means (Philosophy? Marching bands???; plus items that were invented first by others but then tweaked or reinvented). Also, not always accurate (check the entries under Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world#Mechanical_clocks, where there are numerous errors/discrepancies with the source). NJGW (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Keep content somewhere because... I think the article is inappropriate (and there are certainly problems we can nitpick within it), but I think the same is true of Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers, Timeline of Islamic science and engineering, Irish inventions and discoveries, History of metallurgy in China, History of metallurgy in the Indian subcontinent, Metallurgy in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and probably many others as well. In the metallurgy cases, why isn't this information in the Metallurgy article or a new History of metallurgy article? I think that, rather than just delete this single article, the entire issue needs to be looked at, with somebody taking the time to find a large number of the articles like this and then proposing what should be done with them as a group. On this article alone, I would vote Delete, but I'm not comfortable deleting this article, which looks like it has some interesting information in that may not be elsewhere on Wikipedia, without addressing the larger issue. BTW, it doesn't violate WP:OR to have an article consisting of smaller items, each of which could potentially be articles of their own, except they are too small or perhaps not notable enough completely on their own -- I don't see anything in the article that attempts to advance a position outside of the listing. RoyLeban (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote change: Just to add a comment on potential SYN violation -- it seems to me the only thing here that could be synthesis is the title. There may be inaccuracies, there may be POV sections, but a list of facts (once verified, etc.) isn't synthesis. Still, I have problems with it and think the whole area, including the US article mentioned below should be examined. I'm fine with this article as it exists today going away, and maybe the content gets dispersed to avoid POV issues, but do something with this well-sourced content and don't do it in isolation of other problematic articles. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedia had thousands of articles on inventions? RoyLeban (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As original research, and the article is a mess besides. --Pstanton 07:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

  It isn't OR in that there are lots of references and, well, it should be easy to work out who invented what and if they are muslim. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an inaccurate, misleading mess. It is potentially useful, although I agree with RoyLeban's sentiment that we need to take a look at this sort of article anyway. Potential usefulness does not impact on this article; while it may be decided we need an article that expresses this sort of sentiment I highly doubt much of the content of the current article will be included in it. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's original research, and bad original research at that. I started trying to clean up the article by deleting items that were clearly outside the scope (e.g. the work of US scientists with an Iranian background), but if this work continues we will have an almost empty article. There is certainly potential for an article on "science in the modern Islamic world" but it should be in the usual form of a coherent article and not a list. There could perhaps also be a category for "inventions in the modern Islamic world", but not I think an article. LeContexte (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge with Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers. First, the meaning of modern in this context is explained in the article: most medieval (more exactly, post Islamic golden Age). Second, the selection of items listed does myh and large appear to be notable, though we should double check we have proper articles on them. Some of the earlier ones are not very exactly documented as to just what they did. Third, the major necessary improvement is a chronological arrangement with the broad groups--this alone would clarify things. There are an enormous mount of general and specific sources, even in english, and all of this can be well documented. Used in the sense of the Muslim cultural area, not religion, this is a valid article topic and a defensible list. Used in the sense of people descended from those in the Muslim cultural area, it's a good deal fuzzier, but possible. If religion is wanted, some of the 20th century people are definitely Muslims , information about most of the rest is known one way or another, and ones before 1900 can all be assumed to be at least nominal Muslims. Almost everything there is sourced, and I see no OR whatsoever. Assemblage of material is not OR, and it's just a question of selection. I think it would be better to start here than to start over. If deleted, which it should not be, I'll gladly userify to anyone who wants to work on it further. DGG (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is well sourced. Compare it to List of United States inventions and discoveries that has no references. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Other stuff exists is not a valid argument, but thanks for pointing out something else that may need to be looked at :P. In addition it isn't a valid comparison; if that article was 'List of United States inventions and discoveries' about discoveries made in the US by US citizens and half of it was full of people who weren't US citizens, people who once visited the US and people who live near the US then the analogy might work. Ironholds (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main argument is that the article is sourced. If some of the items doesn't belong in the article then it should be edited like you did. If expanded and edited the article has potential. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - article is well sourced, it may have some issues but is generally acceptable. It is thus notable. List of United States inventions is in a worse state that this (at least this has references). LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See conversation immediately above. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." WP:OSE

Is that a reply to the 'other stuff exists' point? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is sourced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. YellowMonkey

(click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is your argument that they arent inventions? or aren't from the Islamic world? or both? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Funny I thought wikipedia was supposed to be full of notable, sourced, well-written articles on all topics. Hooper (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's inherently OR and SYN. Putting sources and doing OR doesn't work. On sourced topics not synthesised ones. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because ultimately the article's scope and the way the material represented was totally inadequate at addressing pressing questions:

• Why should these inventions, any inventions, be specifically called Islamic? By implication, there should also be Hindu, Jewish, Taoist and Christians inventions (and lists on them).
• The scope scope of the article remains hazy. Is it about Muslims or the Islamic world in general, about believers or a world region? What have Soviet scientists and Jewish Iranian immigrants to the US to do with the tag "Islamic inventor"? Do individiual 'inventors' even want to be addressed as Muslims?
• With many inventions, the quoted sources only say that this and that was made by this and that person, but they do not say it was invented by him. And in the cases the sources do so, they often do not explicitly claim that it was first invented, that is they do not support the strong claims made here consistently.

In sum, I found it an originally researched article with a quite strong POV synthesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, starting with its title. But it has proper referencing and it cites many valid historical points. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: An article should only be nominated for deletion if it has no grounds to exist in the first place, not because the current state of the article isn't good enough. The reason why I originally created this article is simply because the previous article from which much of the information was drawn (Inventions in the Islamic world) was getting too large, so I split it up into two articles: Inventions in medieval Islam and Inventions in the modern Islamic world. If there is any ambiguity over the term "modern", then it could simply be renamed to "Inventions in the post-classical Islamic world", unless anyone has any better suggestions? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- WP:OR, WP:SYN. Sarvagnya 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, once again, per nom and Sarvagnya. Giggy (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYN. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite apparent synthesis upon the basic definition, the article is a list, which tries to tie together concepts in other articles, as opposed to being a separate topic. The article will require a rename to include "List of..." and also to rethink the word "Inventions". It should either become "Achievements", or the article should be rewritten to remove scientific discoveries. I'd also advise regular editors to be certain all entries are from the "Islamic World" and are not simply Muslim. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and try again. My cleanup of edits along these lines at Telescope related articles, (and trying to chase down more of these "facts"), has made me very aware of the problems contained here. The stuff is sourced but the sources are mis-used, mis-quoted, sometimes just plain wrong, and are all "spun" to reach a synthesis. The editors involved have admitted in there talk or on their talk pages that they edit from a POV. This does not make their efforts wrong, it just adds a skew to their writing that we all have to be mindful of. A rethink from basics is needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please prove it. I cannot take your word for it.LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 18:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYN. This article is essentially a copy of Inventions_of_the_Islamic_Golden_Age. I am very annoyed at the need to constantly chase down gross inaccuracies, exaggerations, and fabrications. Furthermore, very few (or maybe none) of the inventions described have anything remotely to do with religion. If you sort inventions according the religion of the inventor, you'll end up with four or five very long lists and a several little ones. Except for beating your chest, how useful would these lists be? Frotz (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge per above. Khoikhoi 06:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:OR, WP:SYN - as above, there are thousands of patents for any given region of the world; a comprehensive article of this nature would be impossible, even without all of the dubious assertions (sustainable boat? disease diagnoses as inventions?) Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless some reliable sources can be found for the whole concept (not just for individual inventions), this can't be anything but synthesis. Orpheus (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Delete per WP:OR, and WP:SYN. These inventions have nothing to do with religion. The link is incidental - the inventions haven't been created because of Islam or because the inventors are Muslim. --vi5in^[talk] 18:51, 24 January 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.