Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quotations on 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. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations on Islam

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

A collection of quotes, negative in tone and thoroughly worthless as an encyclopedic article. This is much more appropriate for Wikiquote and not Wikipedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim made by the user 'Chrissymad' above, I present this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Movie_Quotes

This page lists the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema.

Also this - List of quotes featuring Berlin -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quotes_featuring_Berlin

Therefore, there is no violation. Wikipedia does list quotations.

Also, this page lists a significant number of quotes that are exceedingly useful and beneficial in regard to the knowledge of the readers, as such it is a highly productive page.

PS - Feel free to add positive quotations. I would welcome them. In fact, I am looking forward to add them myself once I find proper sources. Probity22 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTQUOTE says, "Wikipedia articles are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations .... If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." This collection of quotes already has a thematic counterpart at Wikiquote:Islam (and see also Wikiquote:Category:Islam for related topics). The situation with AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes is different, as that is a notable list (voted and ranked by a group of 1,500 voters selected by a major organization, and then announced on a three-hour nationally broadcast television special); that is, the list itself is notable. I have nominated List of quotes featuring Berlin for deletion because it doesn't belong in Wikipedia either. (I would also note that this list of quotations about Islam is poorly organized, being listed alphabetically by the speaker's first name, but that's not worth being concerned about given that the entire article ought to be deleted.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ridiculously indiscriminate. How many quotes qualify for such a broad topic? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete 1] Regarding the claim by Metropolitan90 above, it states - are not ... Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics.

-- Loosely associated topics The topic that I am associating it with is not loosely associated. It will be associated with the Islam series.

2] In addition, it states - Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. So the content being Islam, the article can serve as the function of its directory on quotations.

3] I do not think it is fair that such is the desperation to remove this article, that you remove another article as well. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. Simply add positive quotes and defend Islam if that is what you want. Of course, goes without saying, if that article is not removed, then it makes no sense that this one is removed. And you are welcome to sort the list in whatever order you wish. Probity22 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 There are so many things to address with your statements but I'm going to start with how patently ridiculous number 3 is. One can see your love and admiration for Islam. But we don't need to sacrifice another article to remove this one. This is not what AfD is about and certainly not what Wikipedia is about. My personal feelings on a subject are completely irrelevant and do not come into play when I nominate something for deletion and my bias is that I dislike non-encyclopedic content and garbage. This is not encyclopedic and is an indiscriminate list of quotes with little or no encyclopedic value and this just simply is not the appropriate place for it, per the several guidelines and policies you've been linked to. And adding quotes that would balance it out won't make it any better, just a larger mess of non-encyclopedic content.

With regard to number 2: please re-read the links you've been given.

Number one: you fail to acknowledge that in that same sentence you've quoted it is followed by If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTQUOTE tells us exactly why this does not belong in Wikipedia. And even if the severe current bias were rectified, it would still be a case of original research. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned, it does not meet WP:NOTQUOTE, which specifically says Wikipedia is not for lists of quotes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a collection of articles providing facts on different topics; it is not a collection of primary sources or other people's quotations. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary of quotations. Arguing over the closeness of the association is irrelevant, but it could be pointed out that the quotations are from a wide range of people, countries, historical periods, and attitudes, and while an individual person or closely-connected group's religious beliefs may be notable, the topic of what everybody ever says about Islam is far more loosely connected than that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By depriving the viewers of such extensive knowledge, we are doing a disservice to the viewers. I would accept any decision of course, but we all know that this statement is true -

This page only adds to the knowledge base of wikipedia, and hence is highly productive and beneficial. It does not take away anything from wikipedia. It is merely a comprehensive addition, which would greatly help all those who come across it.

I stand by my position. The rest is up to the community. Probity22 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probity22 Please see WP:POINT. Also with regard to the Berlin page - there are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia. Millions. No human being could reasonably look at every single one. You should really reconsidering amending your last edit as you're making some pretty incredible accusations and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Probity22 has been warned re not assuming good faith. Based on their latest post above, it looks like the article was created as a soapbox, which is yet another reason to delete it (speedily, for preference). --bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete or transwiki the choice of quotes here looks to be original research, and there will be no end to the list. A place for this content would be on Wikiquote, so transwiki is possible.. I was hoping there would be on a book called this, but not so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This appears to be a list of quotes attacking Islam, and not an attempt at developing a genuine encyclopedia article. Given the fundamental problems with how it was assembled (lack of attempts to provide a neutral position on selection of quotes, etc), I disagree strongly about transwiking it: that would just export the problem elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the very definition of original research. Dig up quotes supporting a POV, voilá! Carrite (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10 as an attack page "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". --Lockley (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - fails NPOV, NOR, and NOT. Transwiki to wikiquote would be appropriate if Probity22 was interested in moving the material. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on multiple levels. It's just a pointless collection of quotes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:SNOW. In addition to all the other concerns, this fails WP:SOAP and WP:LIST. We are not a webhost for anybody for or against a religion; we are a nonsectarian charity and could lose our tax-exempt status if we stray too far from our core mission. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian, and have friends who happen to be Moslem. In developmental psychology, it is known that 13 year old girls focus on "fairness" (Wood, 2007). Bearian (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2017 (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.