Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociology of Radical Islam

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 delete. WP:NOR is not negotiable, and this is patent original research. May be userfied for further work. Sandstein 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of Radical Islam

Contested prod. Blatant violation of WP:OR - article even starts "This essay is an attempt...", no references, sources or notability asserted CultureDrone (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that references have been added by the author since this AfD nomination, however article still (imho) has issues over WP:OR and WP:N. CultureDrone (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete at least at present, this is too much of the nature of an opinion and analysis essay, not a wikipedia article.DGG (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also note that the author has acted in good faith to improve the article since its original nomination. CultureDrone (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read it, and in my judgment it remains a personal interpretation. A rather good essay actually, and quite possibly worth publishing--but not here. DGG (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete article is OR, SYN, both? Although a possibly encyclodic subject that may make some sense if included in part in a section on Sociology in religion, an article on Islam, or another place this article doesn't look to be up to scratch with the relevant policies and guidelines for encyclopedic inclusion as a stand alone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced portions to Islamism (which is where Radical Islam redirects to). No reason that the two editors can't contribute to an existing article. Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. A very distinctly POV one, at that. RayAYang (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I first saw this article patrolling new pages and it seems to me a good article, well referred, with a neutral POV in a controversial theme. As i noted the author's difficult with wiki, i tried to guide him in Wiki norms (mainly POV); he made few adjusts, but not enough. I worked in the article in format, wikilinks and categories, but not in the subject. I basically agree with David (DGG), but i think the article should be kept waiting for some contributions to improve it. I'd like to do it, but i don't think i have enough knowledge about the theme. Caiaffa (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV problems are atrocious. Just because it's educated and intelligent, doesn't prevent this article from having an extremely strong point of view on American foreign policy, history of the Mideast, etc. It would, to borrow a phrase from another guideline, "require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic." The author should try to get this published somewhere as an op-ed or extended comment on foreign policy, but not on Wikipedia. RayAYang (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (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.