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. There is a clear consensus not to delete here, but this should not prejudice any discussion on the talk page about a merge, which also has support here. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ma malakat aymanukum[edit]

Ma malakat aymanukum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article should be removed per WP:NOTADVOCATE. The title is not encyclopedic and is mostly used to justify the violent rapes by extremists. Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete though honestly, the violation of WP:OR seems more serious here. The opening line and much of the beginning is cited directly with the Qur'an itself - a telltale sign of original research by editors who believe they've discovered something which they must inform the world of. Beyond that, the citations are actual articles and papers but they're a mish-mash of different things which seem to be placed in order to evoke some sense of notability/legitimacy. In reality, it's a premise being suggested with citations selected to push the point of view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is of poor quality indeed and it needs to be cleaned for OR and other issues. However, the article should be revised, but not deleted. Ma malakat aymanukum is much discussed in the historical scholarship of various Fiqhs of Islam, as well as in the English literature (1, 2, p. 202 of ISBN 978-0674050594 by Harvard University Press, p. 6 of ISBN 978-0195053265 by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0674810839, etc). The article topic is thus notable per WP:N. The article does not meet the deletion criterion stated in WP:DEL-REASON. Wikipedia's deletion policy page, at WP:ATD states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." RLoutfy (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RLoutfy: How about the nominator reasoning? Mhhossein (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the article "advocating"? It is understandable that some Muslims are annoyed that this passage of the Quran is used to justify rape, but that doesn't really diminish its notability - quite the contrary. In addition to the sources brought up by RLoutfy, the phrase is mentioned in Brill's "First Encyclopaedia of Islam"[1] up towards a century ago, long before anyone in the West had heard of jihadism, so any insinuation that the interest in the passage is due to some great conspiracy against Muslisms should be disregarded.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article should not be deleted because there is no basis for such an action. Plus Muhammad himself had a slave who was his concubine so this is not some fictional concept. The article should be edited further using academic sources and not frenzied media reports. Mbcap (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: Could you please expalin why there'e no basis fir this action? Plus, how can you regard the that attribution to Muhammad as if it is certainly true? I did not questioned the notability, I believe that the title is not encyclopedic! Mhhossein (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein if you are not questioning the notability of the article then why are you asking why there is no basis for the topic? Muhammad himself had a slave who was his concubine. I suggest you go read Martin Lings book on the life of Muhammad. Mbcap (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is a rather significant corpus of material to be found in Google books on the topic of slavery and this phrase. That defines notable. Ogress _smash! 08:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ogress: Not every material found in Google merits being an article here. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Merge to Islamic views on slavery- @Mhhossein and MezzoMezzo: Please try to improve the article instead of deleting. This article refers has many problems but the solution is not deletion.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable. Satisfies GNG due to sources in GBooks. As for the nominator's rationale, "unencyclopedic title" is per se not a valid argument for deletion, as, in all cases, pages can be moved or redirected, and content merged. James500 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think merging is the best suggestion to solve the problems.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Islamic views on slavery. Quis separabit? 20:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG and is extensive enough to merit its own article —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meets GNG, The article does need major improvements but notability's there so will have to say keep. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG and, contra arguments advanced above, just as there are WP articles on The Bible and slavery and Christian views on slavery, so there can be articles on both Islamic views on slavery and this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the article's topic in and of itself is important and deleting it would not be in the spirit of an encyclopedia. Rather, the original proposer of this deletion may want to improve it if he/she can and discuss it. As someone above has said, just because it is allegedly used to excuse "violent rapes by extremists" does not mean it should be deleted, but improved to meet WP:OR and WP:POV. Akhi666 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also seems to make sense to merge it with Islamic views on slavery, as this is a sub-topic of that and there is a large overlap (see Wikipedia-Merging). Thank you. Akhi666 01:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional Comment: First improve and expand Ma malakat aymanukum, then decide if a merger is appropriate. The Islamic views on slavery article is already long, and WP:SUMMARY guidelines may be constructive. RLoutfy (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2015 (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.