Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pookeo9 (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 9 September 2010 (→‎Further discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

International Burn a Koran Day

International Burn a Koran Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publicity stunt by a minuscule group of Floridan bigots. WP:CRYSTAL applies, as no books have yet to be burnt. The title is misleading, as the event is in no way "International", and the any encyclopedic "content" could be placed into any number of existing articles. Pure propaganda, to be deleted with malice. Physchim62 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was closed as a speedy keep here, after only 26 minutes of listing. I notified the editor who made the decision to close the debate here and, having no response during the time that that editor deemed suitable for discussion, I have decided to reopen the discussion on this page. I note that this edit shows that there is at least some support for deletion of the article among other editors. WP:SNOW is inappropriate at such an early stage, and accusations of WP:POINT are pure bad faith. Physchim62 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re: "Although the naming of this day has already achieve notoriety, this is entirely due to its inflammatory nature." - Wikipedia institutionally does not care where notariety (or in it's own parlance, notability) comes from. The value of the source of notability is a subject for opinion, the reality of there being large numbers of referenced secondary sources is fact. Fact trumps opinion. I see that someone has removed the non-admin closure so I won't perform it again (I'm not an admin), but I'll repeat that this is a case of WP:SNOW and should be treated as such. The event is distasteful, but it's unquestionably newsworthy. -Markeer 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply While your personal level of awareness of a news story is undoubtedly important, I'll request that you read WP:SNOW in context. Given the number of speedy keep suggestions (with arguments) and the extremely large number of citations on the article itself, the likelihood of any responsible admin closing this debate with a deletion verdict is as close to nil as possible. You do not want to give attention to this event or this group, fine. I personally applaud your opposition to the situation as I will (again) state that I would find such an event reprehensible. But my personal opinion means no more than yours in this kind of situation. The group and this planned event have become a notable topic in news and government, prompting articles and commentary by officials. It is therefore notable by wikipedia's guidelines and best practices. Wikipedia is not censored, and it does not have any specific point of view, so the nature of this event should not (and almost certainly will not) change the outcome of this AfD nomination. -Markeer 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for you're reading suggestions! If I might make one in return, it would be WP:NOTNEWS. Simply because a subject has been discussed in newspapers for a few days does not make it notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. I noted my ignorance of the "name" of this "event" simply because I don't live within the U.S. news-cocoon. Public book-burnings (even just across the United States) on a single day for a single reason would indeed be a notable topic for an article, perhaps comparable to the Kristallnacht, for example. Thankfully, we seem to be far from such a situation, so we treat the event under normal notability criteria: nothing's happened so there's nothing to write about. We have a pastor in Florida, leading (and so paid by) a congregation of about fifty souls in Florida who says he's going to burn the Qu'ran on Saturday, just because he thinks muslims are dangerous. Several people speak out to say that his actions would be objectionable. Neither the proposed actions nor the reactions are unprecedented in any way. The subject is of Islamophobia is already treated in other Wikipedia articles, and even this mini-congregation has its own article. Surely the oweness is on people to say why this event is so obviously "significant" in the medium-to-long term as to merit special discussion, over and above any other acts of book burning or Islamophobia or any other discussion of the acts of this "church". Physchim62 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when there is absolutely huge media coverage of an event, and a huge response from governments, religious leaders, senior military it is notable for an article. If the event goes ahead this issue will not go away, there will be a response from the muslim world as they go crazy in opposition to peoples freedom to express themselves. This is like the Danish cartoon controversy, which has good article status. If that is justified, then this article is too. International coverage and the response to it has been extreme. I totally agree that this should not be notable, but the worlds media, religions and governments have decided it is and wikipedia can not ignore this. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are not really comparable since the Danish caricature affair was not a universally condemned nutjob. There were reasonably serious, fairly sane, well-established individuals of the establishment, not just in Denmark, but all around the world, who supported not merely the principle, but the act itself, and the cartoons were published in a major Danish newspaper. This is a small group of religious zealots getting up to predictably inflammatory antics that lack any kind of notable support. At least for now, separating the book burning from the article on the church makes as much as sense to me as starting a separate article on Jimmy Jump's latest World Cup pitch invasion. Peter Isotalo 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are absolutely comparable in their relevant features. What you bring up as an elleged factor to establish or disprove notability, i.e. whether the contentious act is rational or has supporters, is however wholly irrelevant. Our notability guidelines do not take into account whether something is rational or condoned, only whether it has attracted the attention of reliable sources. Apparently you are not the only editor who harbours this misconception. But it is a misconception and for the lack of innate ability to see why this is so, the remaining remedy would be to update yoursel(f)(ves) on what Wikipedia's policies have to say on this. __meco (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that this incident, unlike the Danish controversy, is just about entirely dependent on the actions of a small fringe group and could just as well be covered within the confines of the article on the group. I don't see that I'm going against any notability guidelines here since I'm not arguing about not including certain information, but rather that i should be presented in a more appropriate context.
Peter Isotalo 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that variation of your argument makes sense. Obviously the controversy is wholly centered on the issue of burning Qur'ans, not on the church and its anti-Islamic and otherwise controversial activities as such. Also, what you and a lot of others on this page completely fail to acknowledge is the fact that the article was created in part because this issue was beginning to swamp the article on the the church, a trend which by all sound estimates will become stronger as more and more people and institutions around the world are getting involved in the matter. I'm quite bemused that so many people here, including you, seem simply uanble to apprehend the logic of this. __meco (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article on Islamophobia that can put such actions into context; there is no need for a separate article on one event that hasn't even taken place yet. Nor should we be offering free publicity to individuals for events that are, in themselves non-notable (book-burnings happen every day, maybe not in the U.S. but they happen all the same) Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has a very similar article on the very similar subject Piss Christ. Vulgarian Visigoth (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move/merge, the article's name is imho not a notable name/term. There is a notable news story, but at the current stage that rather belongs in wikinews. In addition parts of the story might be incorporated into other articles/under a different name. Note the problem is note of having parts of the developing incorporated into WP articles. The issue here is with promoting the term ""International burn a koran day" as if it were a well established, notable term or known regular event, which it is not. Note that most statements by politician and organization don't talk about the "International Burn a Koran Day", but simply condemning the burning of Korans.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe that the issue here is with naming the article, why do you assert that the article should be deleted? None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines would suggest that a naming dispute should be solved by deleting the subject. __meco (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the the above sentence contains an 'or and second of all imho this is not regular naming dispute as in A might be more appropriate than B, but rather of the type B is currently completely unacceptable as article name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. This event is receiving publicity, but, per Kmhkmh, not necessarily under this particular name. The topic can be adequately covered within the article about the church itself, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not news and not every single reaction to the planned Koran-burning is notable. (Seemingly, substantially everybody in the world is against this event, so each individual denunciation is not inherently worthy of note.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. This so-called international event is just a one-off event which may not even happen. It is well covered in the article on the church, and it should be changed to a redirect to there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
  • The reason the event is well covered in the article on the church is that this article was created less than 12 hours ago based on the coverage in the church article since the volume had grown so much that a fork was warranted per standard practice. The cleanup of that operation, which would be to reduce the coverage of the event in the Dove World article to a brief summary otherwise referring to the new article, has simply not yet been undertaken. __meco (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting huge international media coverage too. But the fact there is so much coverage is why we must have a single article on it, there is not enough room on the Dove page to detail the response. The event has not even happened yet and there are already a huge number of peoples responses to mention, after it happens and the riots that will follow its going to need more space. If you know this is getting lots of media coverage, pls back Keep. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think I know what my vote was and on what grounds I based it. As for attention, the event is organized by a certain church, which is where in my opinion the information should be, and where a redirect would lead the interested reader to. Please fight the need to comment on every vote that is different from yours. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, for now; it has not happened yet, but is already RS and V'd and certainly in the news. Now is not the time.
Comment: Are we going to jump the gun and decide before mother time does? Whatever happens later, happens; notable people have already crystal'd themselves, and the world will see how these differing but very fundamental concepts play out. With much historic precedence for such events, lets hope it is not followed by the sound of breaking glass. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable. Klassikkomies (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Overridingly large amount of coverage and reaction from notable military, political and religious figures. The reaction itself in advance of the proposed burning is notable and CRYSTAL doesn't apply to that reaction. However, perhaps a rename to something such as "Proposed burnings of Qu'rans in memory of 9/11" or .. well, my suggestion is still pretty bad, but I think changing the name of the article to reflect the specific burning, rather than the event name, might address Kmhkmh's concern. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center, or move to something less authoritative. The subject can be covered within the article about the "church", or perhaps renamed to broaden the subject and include other atrocities advocated by the group. I'd never heard of the event either. If kept, it should be moved to a less formal name. The current title indicates an established, or well-known international event. Nightw 06:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep internationally famous event Dreamspy (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dove World Outreach Center. This is just a classic troll, which Wikipedia typically no longer rewards. We don't let people like this dictate the name for the article. The pastor may be note worthy enough for an article, the church may be notable enough for an article, but no matter what, this defamatory statement he wrote on the side of his broken down trailer is not worthy of an article. It's not an international event. It's a single event by a single pastor of a single church. 69.247.236.136 (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to go with the sources. I agree that this little Pastor should have been completely ignored and deserve no coverage at all, but that is not how our world works. The entire planet is getting its knickers in a twist over this, and for wikipedia to simply give it a couple of paragraphs in an article on a outreach center or pastor is not good enough. The sources (which are endless) suggest this is highly notable, and requires its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this has similarities to Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and should be kept as it's clearly notible. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Keep - this is without doubt extremely notable and deserves its own article. It shouldnt get any media attention at all and not need an article but sadly that is not how our world works. This article got over 2000 views yesterday, that is more views than some articles that are deemed notable get in a year. This will make it on to the mainpage in the news section, so it will be read by a huge number of people. There is no way this page should be deleted or merged. There is not enough room to detail this event on the outreach center page. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, especially if it gets added to the main page which is should be if this deletion request is closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will be rather disheartened if you go the main page discussion where this story has in fact been nominated. The myopic, head-in-the-sand perspective vociferously asserted by the nominator in this discussion appears to be ubiquitous on that page. I find it increasingly difficult to understand what a group of people with such challenged intellects and rational faculties possibly could contribute to Wikipedia, certainly the In The News area, or indeed how they happened to congregate there. __meco (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these people are complete and utter morons and do not deserve any attention what so ever--- it's really a shame that a high school diploma or a certificate proving youre not inbred at the very least is not required to hammer your monkey paws on a computer keyboard and create undue attention for your stupid ideas.
Lol i think once the event happens there will be enough support for its inclusion, but some of the responses there are as tedious as this AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meco, that is downright rude (and you deserve a trout slap for that personal insult), and BritishWatcher, you are not being helpful. Can we not have a civilized discussion in which people disagree in a civilized manner? You are inviting comments like that useless sentence inserted just above. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dove Worldarticle - this one time "event" should be viewed by readers in context - it is not an international effort, an American effort, or a yearly holiday event - it is the creation of a tiny church with extreme beliefs and it belongs entirely to that church and in that church's article. More to the point, the book burning is the creation of the church's attention seeking pastor who once headed the second largest church in Cologne Germany, but who now has financial problems, tax problems and a congregation of 50 members. These facts are very relevant and cannot be fully appreciated unless the book burning is discussed entirely within the church's article. Finally, there are policy reasons - do we really want to enshrine this as an international event - do we really want to possibly do anything to pointlessly enrage people who hold sincere religious beliefs - do we really want to do anything that will possibly add to this "event" which the experts, the generals in the field, say will further endanger US and NATO troops?? KeptSouth (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to see it kept, so long as I am allowed to add the adjective militant in front of Dove World Outreach Center, to match the other instance of that word later in the sentence in front of Islam. That would balance that sentence up nicely. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that would be correct as last tiem I checked, this church hasn't threatened violence to anyone or killed anybody. All they've done is threaten to burn a book which they intend to do so I don't think calling them millitant would be correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MErge no need for it to have its own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The President of the United States has also now commented in an interview on the issue. [2] Would those at present supporting merging be more prepared to support keeping if the article was renamed to describe it as a controversy. rather than just day. International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy has been suggested on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely Strong Keep One little man in Florida has politicians all over the world in a lather? Religious fanatics the world over not able to hold their tongues or their tempers? We are no longer talking about a religion here, are we? If the man were burning a bible, none of us would be here. And if he were spray-painting the bible with elephant dung, we might be bidding on it at Sotheby's. The Muslims need to grow up. Now. (talk)
  • Strong Keep I concur with many of the comments given above. (talk)
Most likely this will be kept and not deleted so it will be in an article on wikipedia, the main debate I see here is will it have its own article or be part of another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - the article name is what's getting in the way. The huge, worldwide media attention to this matter means we have to have a separate article (even if the burning gets called off or prevented in some way). However, we don't have to use the name defined by Jones, and a more meaningful one would be better. Something like 2010 Florida Koran-burning controversy as some others have suggested.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about article name and people voting to merge or delete

It seems a lot of people casting their opinions to either delete this page or merge it back to the Dove World article do so based on their opposition to the current article title. I would encourage those who have acted on this way to reconsider. Changing the article's name is a much less drastic measure than what you are giving your support to, in fact there is already a discussion at Talk:International Burn a Koran Day about renaming the article where two alternatives have been presented so far:

  • International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy
  • 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy

Personally I think the second one is a good candidate for a name change for the article. Please go to the article talk page to discuss this (i.e. don't do it as follow-up to this post), and please reconsider your vote given above if it fits with the description I gave above. __meco (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second choice here is far better than my own suggestion. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support name change to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning Controversy, and recommend User:Meco be bold and enact it if no significant counter arguments before end of day today (Florida time). The newsworthiness at the moment (and I'll note "Quran Burning likely to trigger attacks" is the headline article on CNN.com as I type this) is about the controversy more than the planned event -Markeer 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you do speedy move, please leave the redirect, as an editor above has commented that there is a significant link from outside Wikipedia to the current article title. (If I'm wrong about the inbound link, of course this reasoning doesn't apply.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name is not "... Qur'an Day" but "... Koran Day". Although there is obviously a widespread opinion on the spelling of the book's title, the day's name clearly is spelt with "Koran".--FlammingoHey 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. WritersCramp (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a renaming to the 2nd option. This would remove the main problem of the current article. Almost all editors here so far agreed that the content itself due to the related media hype is notable, the issue mostly about which article is best suited for the content and that the current name is problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far

This is for the attention of any Admins following this discussion. I thought it would be a good idea to tally up the positions for those wishing the article not to be deleted against those who argue that it should be merged or renames.

With a controversial topic such as this we have to be on our guard against comments from IP address and relatively new accounts which may have been created soleöy for the purpose of influencing this discussion. I think we also should be on the lookout for persons seeking to use personal feelings over and above the really important issue of Wikipedia policy. I therefore thought it wise to check also on the users' editing histories. For each editor I have given the eariest WP contribution date and marked with a * any relatively new accounts or accounts which may otherwise arouse suspicion or which are IP accounts where the earliest edit data may npt be the same user and also may be a registered commentator seeking to air their view twice.

For merge or delete (and 1 rename)

  1. 2004/11 User:Grenavitar
  2. 2004/03 User:SarekOfVulcan
  3. 2005/05 User:Physchim62
  4. 2005/05 User:Hauskalainen
  5. 2005/05 User:Metropolitan90
  6. 2005/09 User:Herostratus
  7. 2005/10 User:Peter Isotalo
  8. 2005/10 User:Bduke
  9. 2005/11 User:VirginiaBoy
  10. 2005/11 User:AndrewRT
  11. 2006/08 User:Weaponbb7
  12. 2006/12 User:OneHappyHusky
  13. 2007/01 User:Wikidemon
  14. 2007/02 User:Kmhkmh
  15. 2007/08 User:Drmies
  16. 2007/11 User:Hans Adler
  17. 2008/09 User:Knowledgekid87
  18. 2008/10 User:Night w
  19. 2009/10 User:KeptSouth
  20. 2009/11 69.247.236.136 *
  21. 2010/05 User:Userpd


For Keep

  1. 2002/16 User:Netcrusher88
  2. 2004/02 User:Capitalistroadster
  3. 2005/10 User:Markeer
  4. 2005/11 User:Joe Decker
  5. 2006/02 User:meco
  6. 2007/05 User:Ks0stm
  7. 2007/09 User:CasualObserver'48
  8. 2008/02 User:Dreamspy
  9. 2008/04 User:The_C_of_E
  10. 2008/05 User:BritishWatcher
  11. 2008/09 User:User:Klassikkomies * Important Note 2
  12. 2008/08 User:HiLo48 ***
  13. 2008/12 User:Wikireader41
  14. 2009/01 User:GainLine
  15. 2009/02 User:Amore_Mio
  16. 2009/04 User:Meishern
  17. 2009/05 User:Iqinn
  18. 2010/08 User:Vulgarian Visigoth * Important Note 1
  19. 2010/09 User:Soupy sautoy *
  20. 2010/09 220.210.177.79* Important Note 3

*** I really should have taken notice of those among my friends who keep telling me that Americans just don't get irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 The account has only has only just been created and this was the first and only WP edit

Note 2 This editor has an interesting edit history! He seems to have a penchant for editing articles on pornography and to articles with violent themes. Also to the articles such as the one on the convicted Finnish racist Seppo Lehto and the controversial Finnish anti- immigration figure Jussi Halla-aho

Note 3 The only edits relate to this matter

In summary, the count is fairly even balanced but there are potentially more "suspicious" editors in the "retain" count than in the "rename" or "delete" count. It also seems to me that the editors with the longest edit histories are mostly in favor of the article being renamed or merged. If your name is listed above and I have mis-categorized you or you wish to modify your stance, please feel free to edit the listing. Later persons adding comments may also wish to update the listing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

I'm in the 'keep' camp but am fine with renaming, but made my comments on the article talk page. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we built consensus on discussion and not voting. Truthsort (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I imply we were voting? Maybe the word "tally" and the count list makes you think that. The point is that someone has to make a decision about this and I thought it would be useful to see whether there were attempts by persons attempting to sway the discussion with either little or no edit history, or a history of controversial editing, to misrepresent the opinion of the Wikipedia community. I don't think consensus will ever be achieved. At some point someone with Admin authority is going to have step in and make a decision about this. I did the research on edit histories to help whoever that was to come to a decision about who was commenting here in which way and why that might be. Looking at edit histories and obtaining an understanding of longevity of editing picture might help to determine the serious editors from the transient ones attempting to use WP for nefarious purposes. The counting, the stars and the notes are just part of obtaining a balanced view of what is going on here --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now put the lists in edit history longevity sequence. The more experienced editors are clearly in favor of a rename. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: By the time this AfD is done, the event will have already occurred (assuming it goes forward), which (along with the media coverage surrounding the event) presumably will affect the notability of the event due to national/international reaction to the event's occurrence. Perhaps it would be better to re-examine at that time? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, if this burning does not take place this discussion will pretty much end there. - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That above tally hows there is no consensus to delete or merge the article. Also when taking into account the above point about the event taking place by the time this closes does mean we will be in a completely different situation then anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no consensus, the article is kept or relisted. That is my point.
  • Keep while I'm not keen on it appearing on the front page and the guy organising the event is a total nutter the event is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The US president has commented on it - as have a significant number of other reliable sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/other comment - Overall agree that this item is noteworthy and should be kept. However, my concern is how this event will stand the test of time. Give it a month and this event will be forgotten, and along with it this article orphaned. I think this is suitable more for wikinews than a entry into Wikipedia. sohmc (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep worldwide coverage, comments from Obama and other political figures.--Otterathome (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the church article. AfD is not about article titles but about content. I feel the content would best be presented as a section of the church article. Although the issue has received widespread international condemnation, the condemnation itself has been equally targeted at the church/pastor as at the action. It is still only one nutter in a small non-denominational church holding a book burning; the event is best presented in the context of the organisation that is hosting it. I also haven't heard of this specific name being given to the event, with most news reports referring to "a non-denominational church in the US that plans to burn Korans on September 11", therefore second choice would be a weak keep with enforced rename as per the 2nd rename suggestion above. Zunaid 19:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - this could be deleted as being a flash in the pan and based on past precedent such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely. Per Sohmc, it is "suitable more for wikinews than a entry into Wikipedia." Bearian (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The president of the United States and many religious, political and even a military leader have all responded to this event already, making it notable. This major controversy needs its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Burn_a_Koran_Day&oldid=383903364"