Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad and assassinations

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 speedy delete. I think we have a very clear consensus here so we need not spend any more time debating this. Its clearly snowing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad and assassinations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article by a single-purpose account who is edit-warring and using sockpuppets to ensure his preferred version of the content. The article is sourced from such peerless authorities as Ali Sina, Islam Watch, Answering Islam, Faith Freedom - well, you can probably guess the rest. A lot of it is a novel synthesis of published sources. It's a pretty blatant POV rant and fails to make the case for independent scholarship having made a significant link between Muhammad and assassination, in as much as it was pretty much a standard technique of politics in those times. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is false. right when the article was made an admin checked it,because it was nominated for deletion by RazmanTv for copyright.The admin removed the removal tag. Also i am not a sockpuppet, i have only been accused of it and i have provided evidence for this. DO NOT COME TO CONLUSIONS

Secondly you say this website links to sites such as islamwatch and faithfreedom. that is rubbish. you are misrepresenting the information. The article has over 100 sources to books. but many users have been removing entire sections of the article.

The links to those anti islam website were added 10 minues ago. you make it look like its been there for a long time.They were added because users claim some of these are not assinations. So i added the POV of the cirtics of islam to show that some people do consider ti assiantions. I do nto consider those anti islam websites legit myslef--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have used sockpuppets. That's a fact per this [1]. User:Български360 and User:Admit-the-truth were indefinitely blocked as your sockpuppets on December 8.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also accused me of being a meat puppet/sock just because am his room mate. Furthermore from what i see those sock puppets were banned months ago, NOT IN RELATION TO THAT ARTICLE.Secondly people need to read the discussion page of that article.Because admins got involved regarding a consensus that hat not been reached--Mirroryou1 (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Misconceptions2/Mirroryou1: They were blocked less than a month ago after an investigation found them to be your socks. You have variously said you are "next-door-neigbhoors" and "roommates" which reminds me of this essay wich you may enjoy. WP:BROTHER.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term "assassinations" in this context does not seem to be neutral, and the entire premise seems hopelessly POV and withought solid academic bases. In the absence of reliable, neutral, scholarly sources, I don't see how the article can be kept. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a coincidence, I was literally just adding an AFD tag myself. This article isn't integrated with the other articles about Muhammad or Islam, and it fails to provide any context on what tribal politics in Arabia in the 7th century was like. What it is, as Guy says, is a long and dubiously-documented rant, rather incoherent, and difficult for someone not knowledgeable in the area to understand. I suppose it could technically be improved by an expert in the area, but I really don't think it is worth it, for an article whose very title is POV, and which will inevitably involve long edit-wars. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rticle has a lot of reliable sources to books such as "the selaed nectar", "when the moon split" and many other muslim and non muslim scholars such as Willaim Muir

Delete the ownership and edit warring problems could, in theory, be dealt with separately (though so far they are not). However, the entirely POV nature of this is the problem. It's a fork from Jihad, Mohammed, Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad, Jihad in Hadith, Criticism of Muhammad, Historical Mohammed, Criticism of Islam and many more. It's point appears to want to talk about times when Mohammed encouraged/supported the taking of a human life, in a variety of contexts and for a variety of reasons (almost none of the examples, by the way, true "assassinations.") The endless forking of information so that people can project their own rants via wikipedia is a problem and should be stopped. Some of the articles this is forked from are also problematic, but are at least better, and watched by more people who have an idea about how to write a fair article that seeks to reflect the consensus of scholarly sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say it well. Articles like this, on important world figures, should grow organically out of the existing articles, by consensus of the editors involved. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an editor who tried to improve this rubish article I realise my time would have been better spent elsewhereCathar11 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:COATRACK, WP:RS. The article is full of sources but I failed to find one secondary, reliable source fo any claim. I asked for just one proper source for every claimed assaination or killing attempt in the talk page but only a google search result was provided to me. See [2]. Sole Soul (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2010 (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.