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 Merge to Hygiene in Islam fishhead64 05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic toilet etiquette

[edit]

Article is inherently unencyclopedic and is obviously being used to humiliate Islam and Muslims. There is already an article on hygiene in Islam, which is the appropriate article for legitimate and unbiased information regarding this subject, and preferably from mainstream Muslim sources. What else can I say? It's a terribly shoddy piece of work this thing. As I've written before, Wikipedia is increasingly being used by POV-pushers to attack, defame, and humiliate Islam and Muslims, which is contradictory to the mission of a neutral encyclopedia. Fortunately, articles as bad as this seem to be few in number, so the situation is not too bad. Khorshid 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What, exactly, is mistaken or false in this article? What is biased or untrue about it? Why is it inherently 'unencyclopedic? How can a supernatural belief system be 'humiliated' anymore than a belief in Norse gods or Quetzalcoatl? Do these rules exist in Islamic mythology or not? If they exist why shouldn't they have their own article? Nick mallory 07:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the fact that the article is almost entirely unsourced and is not written as an encyclopedic article (if you don't understand what "unencyclopedic" means, go look it up), your comment seems to me to be in bad faith. Anyone can see that this article is terribly poor. Incidentally, the issue of hygiene in Islam has nothing to do with what you refer to as "mythology". Khorshid 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are references and sources given in the article, are these sources untrue, and if so, why? It's simply untrue to say that it's 'almost entirely unsourced'. You keep saying the article is 'poor' but what part of wikipedia policy does it break to deserve deletion? Why do you accuse me of bad faith when I give an opinion different from yours? You say that Wikipedia is increasingly being used to 'attack' Islam then say, in the next sentence, that it's not a problem. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick mallory (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC). Nick mallory 08:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I am ill-suited to judge the reliability of the source from which almost all of this article is derived (despite the vague and over-arching claim of it being "derived from hadith sources and the collected opinions of people throughout history"). As it stands, though, this article is a content fork with questionable citation. Regardless, to whatever extent this material may be able to be reliably cited, it should be pared down to an appropriate level of detail to allow merger with its existing parent: hygiene in Islam. Serpent's Choice 08:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Serpent's Choice, with prejudice towards treating a living religion with the same high standard we use for living persons. Also, not all atheists are like Nick mallory. Eldereft 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? People are people, religions are ideas. Ideas don't have 'rights' neither do ideas have any automatic call on anyone's 'respect'. I'm not saying this article concerning Islam should be deleted, I'm saying there's no reason to delete it. I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm saying there's no evidence that it is untrue. You seem very confused. Nick mallory 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hygiene in Islam as a content fork, but I do agree with Nick Mallory - if (big if) Quranic citations can be provided for every rule, than it's no more offensive than Etiquette in the United Kingdom or Etiquette in Canada and the United States. There's no earthly reason for it to be separate from the main article, though and I suspect whoever created it separately is trying to make a WP:POINT - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge This title seems to be unencyclopediac and just funny.--Sefringle 04:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominator. --- ALM 10:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an instruction manual with questionable assertions in the lead. → Aktar ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hygiene in Islam anything that can be sourced. Carlossuarez46 23:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this article is (pun unintended) crap. The vaunted references point to either a single, dubious source. Searching of the term "QADAAHUL HAAJAH" finds little but that and some blogs that point to it. Tarc 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with hygiene in Islam I disagree with Khorshid. It will be useful if it is written in the correct way.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:59, 27 April 2007 (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.