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 Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Islamic Non-State (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)

This article has been created using classic WP:OR and WP:COATRACK procedures. While it is true that many muslims claim that ISIS is not a muslim organization, it does not mean that they are calling them by the name "Un Islamic", rather it is an adjective used by muslims. Furthermore Ban Ki Moon used this word only once and WP:NEO clearly says that we cannot use this kind of use to create article about neologisms. In addition to this many people call ISIS by a plethora of names, such as a "the Salafist Terrorists" and others, but it will be against common sense to create an article for every name that ISIS is called. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this term was widely reported and is used in the main Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article, so it makes a resonable redirect. I can't imagine a valid case for separate articles on even much more common names for ISIL then this such as ISIS or Daesh Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: Are you suggesting a Merge & Redirect? Mhhossein (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, though the core of the article about this term is (or was) in the ISIL article already. The parts about Cameron etc could be compactly added as well in an appropriate section. Are you good with that? Legacypac (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I think "Un-Islamic Non-State" is not comparable to 'ISIL', 'Daesh', 'ISIS' or other alternatives because "Um-Islamic Un-state" is not really a name commonly used. In the article, there's absolutely no mention that Muslims are calling them 'Unislamic' and it's importance is only due to being largely reported by WP:RSs. I don't support separate articles for all the titles, too. Mhhossein (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

major sections of ISIL still stand as I drafted them, so I know a lot about the topic. The content is important and belongs in the main article not in a small side article. Daesh is an assigned name ISIL hates too but it should not have a stand alone article either. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LegacypacThanks to your efforts, I had also major contributions to the main article. I wanted to say that "Un-Islamic Un-state" is different from other titles. Anyway, I support the merger. Now I think the Un-Islamic Non-State needs more reflection in sources to be regarded as a stand alone article. Mhhossein (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Notable, sourced content. But it is only a commentary on the name of the organization, not a separate topic. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, maybe adding a short mention in the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This is notable material, but Legacypac and Dimadick hit the nail here: We're writing an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or an etymological lexicon, let alone a phrasebook, so won't ever create separate articles on even the most widely used names, if the same subject is already covered in another article. One subject – many names – still only a single article. --PanchoS (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• PanchoS: Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a better destination in my view. Mhhossein (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Speedy Close as Withdrawn. The only editor now supports turning this into a redirect and adding info to main article. Let's let him do it. Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I can see not withdrawn, but clearly a WP:SNOWBALL case. --PanchoS (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy deletion. As pointed out above by PanchoS, the same subject is already covered in another article. So even if we do accept it as a valid alternative name, it would not be a new article but a mere quick reference in the already existing article. Having said that, the fact that Ban Ki-Moon called it that, does not make it so. Likewise, if suddenly someone pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Roman nor holy, does not mean that we go and create an article. Same goes for names such as Burkina Faso, which means Land of the Upright and by the same tokenLand of the Rising Sun (Japan), etc. These are all merely names, with little significance beyond a dictionary entry as pointed out above. Such names are often devoid of any legitimacy, having been created by a single individual such as Mobutu (Zaïre) and Banda (Malawi). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say about Great Satan or Zionist entity? Mhhossein (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see a problem with the article. It has merit and presents significant comments from the UN, certain Muslim groups and CAIR. In reference to the comments from CAIR of ISIL being anti-Islamic I think that it is fair to say that many of the various sects and subsects of Islam are anti each other in addition to their scripture based prejudices to others. They do however adhere to an interpretation of Islamic fundamentalism and, while the cited comments are notable, in reality it is more accurate to say that ISIL are not representative of Islam. It certainly does not represent a "state" relevant for the shia. GregKaye 08:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nannadeem (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

um, the creator of the article supports merging this. The title is a fine redirect. Legacypac (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Agree to the above version. Nannadeem (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect. A neologistic alternative name for a topic that already has an article at another title is not a thing that warrants a standalone article as a separate topic from the thing it's an alternative name for; it merits mention in the main article, but is not a good basis for a spinoff as a separate thing in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Don't really understand why The Bushranger relisted this one. Without a single rationalized keep, and with the original author supporting a merge, the consensus should be more than clear. --PanchoS (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• merge and redirect to Names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant per the original author. --Lockley (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2016 (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.