Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahound: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:47, 23 October 2006

Mahound

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I embarked upon this request before the creator of the article supplied a useful rationale for the article existing here. From that, I appear to have stumbled into an edit war on another article that this was thought to be a solution to. Now, I don't agree for several reasons - forking an article is rarely a good idea when trying to create NPOV texts; I know a (non-devout, quite the reverse, but still) muslim-origin person named Mahound; the article as it stands lacks context so readers would be as lost as I was; but nevertheless, it was a good faith solution to an awful problem. Prior to my fellow editor intervening, I had speedy deleted this. Now I'm left thinking that, whilst this is still a speedy delete for several reasons, the article may have a requirement to continue to exist. So I'd like advice here. Yes folks, this is an admin who would like others to advise him. Explain to me what you think and why. Give reasons. Don't just "vote" (this isn't a vote, don't let people tell you it is) but give me reasoning. No one here is going to just count heads. If you do give reasoning, it will help me in future when I'm on CSD patrol. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

➨ ЯEDVERS has described well the origin of the article. I understand the point of avoiding POV forks. I am also not committed to this article, but it seemed the right thing. The information in the article is more or less the contents of an ongoing edit war at Muhammad. My thought was that a pejorative term, if it is a notable pejorative term of a notable subject, might be more appropriate in an article under the cat of pejorative terms, rather than in the biographical article of the person involved, just as we have an article on the word Fuck as well as one on Sexual Intercourse. One is about the act, the other about the word. However, from ➨ ЯEDVERS's comments regarding a Muslim acquaintance named Mahound, the situation is perhaps more complex. If the name/term Mahound is not a pejorative term, then the claims that it is, should be removed from the Muhammad article. For individuals who are knowledgable on this subject, I would appreciate not only comments here, but also comments at talk:Muhammad. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~ I do not think its use has been exclusively pejorative, but either way we could have a short but useful article on the name and its use in English literature and history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe this is a POV fork, and I'll use the whole of this comment block to explain why, then give my advise in the next column. It was basically one man who wanted to remove the whole section, as it appeared, because he didn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context. This section has stood for months, with parts of it there for years. I might like to point out that he was immediately banned for violating 3RR and being uncivil (e.g, you are an animal; this was his fourth such block). However, when I saw the section, which others seemed to be reverting in full, it seemed like a bit of an aside to me, so I removed a good portion of it (which BostonMA has restored it nearly in full on this page). We didn't need a long discussion on this specific term, because the article is about Mohammed, not variations of his name (what does some modern cleric declaring Jihad on all who use the term have anything to do with Mohammed?).

For now, Keep the article or Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed (with a redirect), as per the citations, but make sure this is reliable information first. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because you're right, the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced.Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (or possibly merge to Muhammad). -- RHaworth 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tanswiki to Wiktionary. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single variation of Muhammad name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ابراهيم 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than 30,000 Ghits. --Nehwyn 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Mahound is not a variant --user:anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.135.57.65 (talk • contribs) This template must be substituted.

Question: Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --BostonMA ^talk 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Medieval western conception of Muhammad: I was the one who gathered the information about Mahound and add a summary of it as a footnote to the Muhammad article. I think Mahound could be a section in "Medieval western conception of Muhammad" --Aminz 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name Mahound does appear to be a given name, although I am unsure of the frequency. See for example Mahound Manzaloui, an author. --BostonMA ^talk 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 02:21, 23 October 2006 edit AAA765 (talk \| contribs) 22,145 edits →[[Mahound]] ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:47, 23 October 2006 edit undo BostonMA (talk \| contribs) 7,570 edits →[[Mahound]] Next edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:

	*'''Move''' to ''Medieval western conception of Muhammad'': I was the one who gathered the information about Mahound and add a summary of it as a footnote to the Muhammad article. I think Mahound could be a section in "[[Medieval western conception of Muhammad]]" --[[User:Aminz\|Aminz]] 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)		*'''Move''' to ''Medieval western conception of Muhammad'': I was the one who gathered the information about Mahound and add a summary of it as a footnote to the Muhammad article. I think Mahound could be a section in "[[Medieval western conception of Muhammad]]" --[[User:Aminz\|Aminz]] 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''' The name Mahound does appear to be a given name, although I am unsure of the frequency. See for example [http://www.babelguides.com/view/person/19050 Mahound Manzaloui, an author]. --[[User:BostonMA\|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA\|talk]]</sup></font> 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)