Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers

Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers

Part of a walled garden of SYN/OR by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the modern Islamic world. All sorts of things are attributed to a religion without any sources, or when there is a collaboration involving all sorts of people. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - in theory might be workable as a list, BUT: So much of what is actually "modern" in this timeline involves broad cooperation with scientists from around the world... including many Jewish scientists. There's even a picture of a Jewish scientist in the article mislabled as a Muslim. How do we show that each person listed is actually Muslim? How do we decide "how Muslim" they have to be to get on the list: is having a Muslim grandmother enough? I don't even understand what this timeline is supposed to be of... inventions? What constitutes enough notability to be listed here: anything done by a Muslim that is even remotely scientific or engineerish? Do we include the whole catalog of every scientific journal and every bridge built in Iran and Pakistan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJGW (talk • contribs)
• Delete I agree, while theoretically this list would have some value, there is no proof that these people are actually religious muslims, which obviates the notability and usefulness of this list. --Pstanton 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
• Keep "Modern" is defined in the article to mean "after the Islamic Golden Age," just as "Modern history" in English means after the middle ages. 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. The assemblage of information is not OR. It's just a question of defining the parameters for selection. Of course people collaborate; these are the major inventions in which people from that culture area/religion has a leading role. It shouldn't be seen as the things the Muslims did without help from anyone else. I see nothing unencyclopedic about the recognition of ethnicity. I see nothing wrong in the world with pride in ethnic accomplishments, either. 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) 16:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Article can't decide whether it's Islamic, Arab, Indiviual, National or even a real topic. Tries to bring in every possible angle on completely unrelated topics in certain places with no individual conideration or realistic criteria. As there is no serious academic topic discussing or researching Muslim specific scentific researches beyong the Islamic Golden Age, and the fact that those elements, when stripped of all the unverifiable religious classifications, national specifics and comment on western muslim achievments which are in no way segregated from any other development, would be negatable, I see nothing salvagable in this indiscriminate list. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep since this is an interesting and search-worthy list of technological and scientific achievement. I didn't expect to be impressed by it, but I am--it seems solidly based on adequate references. Any problems regarding who or what is Muslim or not can be cleared up in discussion on individual topics; pretty much any ethnicity/religious group has the same definitional problems, and those don't stand in the way of having lists like List of Jewish American visual artists or List of Christian country artists. I know, I know, "other stuff exists" is not an argument--but he who hath ears to hear knows what I mean: definitional problems of ethnicity (etc.) are usually handled in an ad-hoc, conversational manner, rather than by fiat beforehand. I'm chiming in with DGG. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Drmies stated it best. Valid and well done article that shouldn't be deleted due to nominating editor's faiths. Hooper (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Accusing a user of bad faith is considered uncivil, especially when unsubstantiated and without a single reason. I'd personally like you to remove you entire comment including the bolded keep which adds nothing to this discussion (it's not a vote), however that is unlikely to gain any support, so you should at least apologise to the nominator for your rash and factless claims. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Drmies. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If the article was subdivided by nationalities, it might make more sense. It would seem their religion is not relevant to their scientific achievements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way: "it would seem their religion is not relevant..."--to you perhaps! It seems relevant to me, and no doubt to many others. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He quite clearly specificied "to their scientific achievements", and is correct; the achievements weren't related in anyway to their religious beliefs, and "it's interesting" is not a valid reason to keep an otherwise perfectly invalid article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per Jimmi Hugh. The bias of the author is deplorable in itself, but what really degrades the Wikipedia project is the way sources are misquoted to arrive at the desired conclusions. Any such list would also reserve space for contradicting opinions, but this list, as much as its offspring Inventions in the modern Islamic world practically completely lacks them. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:SYN. Sarvagnya 01:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)