Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Mahound: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:55, 22 October 2006 editBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:19, 14 December 2024 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors370,204 editsm Fix Linter errors. 
(20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''clear keep; article title etc needs extra discussion, best done ]'''. ]<b>]</b> 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
⚫ * I embarked upon this request before the creator of the article supplied a useful rationale for the article existing . From that, I appear to have stumbled into an edit war on another article that this was thought to be a solution to. Now, I don't agree for several reasons - forking an article is rarely a good idea when trying to create ] texts; I know a (non-devout, quite the reverse, but still) muslim-origin person named Mahound; the article as it stands lacks con<u>text</u> so readers would be as lost as I was; but nevertheless, it was a good faith solution to an awful problem. Prior to my fellow editor intervening, I had speedy deleted this. Now I'm left thinking that, whilst this is still a speedy delete for several reasons, the article may have a requirement to continue to exist. So I'd like '''advice''' here. Yes folks, this is an ''admin'' who would like others to advise him. Explain to me what you think and why. Give reasons. Don't just "vote" (this isn't a vote, don't let people tell you it is) but give me reasoning. No one here is going to just count heads. If you do give reasoning, it will help '''me''' in future when I'm on CSD patrol. Thanks.]<b>]</b> 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|{{{cat}}}}}
⚫ * I embarked upon this request before the creator of the article supplied a useful rationale for the article existing . From that, I appear to have stumbled into an edit war on another article that this was thought to be a solution to. Now, I don't agree for several reasons - forking an article is rarely a good idea when trying to create ] texts; I know a (non-devout, quite the reverse, but still) muslim-origin person named Mahound; the article as it stands lacks con<u>text</u> so readers would be as lost as I was; but nevertheless, it was a good faith solution to an awful problem. Prior to my fellow editor intervening, I had speedy deleted this. Now I'm left thinking that, whilst this is still a speedy delete for several reasons, the article may have a requirement to continue to exist. So I'd like '''advice''' here. Yes folks, this is an ''admin'' who would like others to advise him. Explain to me what you think and why. Give reasons. Don't just "vote" (this isn't a vote, don't let people tell you it is) but give me reasoning. No one here is going to just count heads. If you do give reasoning, it will help '''me''' in future when I'm on CSD patrol. Thanks.]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


* ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> has described well the origin of the article. I understand the point of avoiding POV forks. I am also not committed to this article, but it seemed the right thing. The information in the article is more or less the contents of an ongoing edit war at ]. My thought was that a pejorative term, if it is a notable pejorative term of a notable subject, might be more appropriate in an article under the cat of pejorative terms, rather than in the biographical article of the person involved, just as we have an article on the word ] as well as one on ]. One is about the act, the other about the word. However, from ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b>'s comments regarding a Muslim acquaintance named Mahound, the situation is perhaps more complex. If the name/term Mahound is ''not'' a pejorative term, then the claims that it '''is''', should be removed from the Muhammad article. For individuals who are knowledgable on this subject, I would appreciate not only comments here, but also comments at ]. Thanks. Sincerely, --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC) * ]<b>]</b> has described well the origin of the article. I understand the point of avoiding POV forks. I am also not committed to this article, but it seemed the right thing. The information in the article is more or less the contents of an ongoing edit war at ]. My thought was that a pejorative term, if it is a notable pejorative term of a notable subject, might be more appropriate in an article under the cat of pejorative terms, rather than in the biographical article of the person involved, just as we have an article on the word ] as well as one on ]. One is about the act, the other about the word. However, from ]<b>]</b>'s comments regarding a Muslim acquaintance named Mahound, the situation is perhaps more complex. If the name/term Mahound is ''not'' a pejorative term, then the claims that it '''is''', should be removed from the Muhammad article. For individuals who are knowledgable on this subject, I would appreciate not only comments here, but also comments at ]. Thanks. Sincerely, --] ] 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


*'''Keep'''<s>'''Comment'''</s> I do not think its use has been exclusively pejorative, but either way we could have a short but useful article on the name and its use in English literature and history. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''<s>'''Comment'''</s> I do not think its use has been exclusively pejorative, but either way we could have a short but useful article on the name and its use in English literature and history. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Line 9: Line 16:
*'''Comment''': I don't believe this is a POV fork, and I'll use the whole of this comment block to explain why, then give my advise in the next column. It was basically one man who wanted to remove the whole section, as it appeared, because he didn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context. This section has stood for months, with parts of it there for years. I might like to point out that he was immediately banned for violating 3RR and being uncivil (e.g, ''you are an animal''; this was his fourth such block). However, when I saw the section, which others seemed to be reverting in full, it seemed like a bit of an aside to me, so I removed a good portion of it (which BostonMA has restored it nearly in full on this page). We didn't need a long discussion on this specific term, because the article is about ''Mohammed'', not variations of his name (what does some modern cleric declaring Jihad on all who use the term have anything to do with Mohammed?). *'''Comment''': I don't believe this is a POV fork, and I'll use the whole of this comment block to explain why, then give my advise in the next column. It was basically one man who wanted to remove the whole section, as it appeared, because he didn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context. This section has stood for months, with parts of it there for years. I might like to point out that he was immediately banned for violating 3RR and being uncivil (e.g, ''you are an animal''; this was his fourth such block). However, when I saw the section, which others seemed to be reverting in full, it seemed like a bit of an aside to me, so I removed a good portion of it (which BostonMA has restored it nearly in full on this page). We didn't need a long discussion on this specific term, because the article is about ''Mohammed'', not variations of his name (what does some modern cleric declaring Jihad on all who use the term have anything to do with Mohammed?).
:For now, '''Keep the article''' or '''Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed''' (with a redirect), as per the citations, but ''make sure this is reliable information first''. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because ''you're right'', the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-]<sup>]]</sup> 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) :For now, '''Keep the article''' or '''Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed''' (with a redirect), as per the citations, but ''make sure this is reliable information first''. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because ''you're right'', the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-]<sup>]]</sup> 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Question''', Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) :'''Question''', Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --] ] 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Keep''' - Well sourced.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC) :'''Keep''' - Well sourced.] ] 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' (or possibly merge to ]). -- ] 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong keep''' (or possibly merge to ]). -- ] 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
<s>*'''Delete''' A single variation of ] name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ] 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) </s>
⚫ *'''Tanswiki''' to Wiktionary. --]\<sup>]</sup> 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' A single variation of ] name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ] 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) *'''rename''' A more general article that contain all of these kind of names. It will have more material in it and will help to avoid making many small articles each with only few sentences in it. Mahound could be name of a section in such an article. --- ] 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


* '''Keep''': More than 30,000 Ghits. --] 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC) * '''Keep''': More than 30,000 Ghits. --] 16:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


* '''Remove''': Mahound is not a variant --] <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
* '''Remove''': Mahound is not a variant --] {{unsigned|203.135.57.65}} {{spa|203.135.57.65}}
:'''Question''': Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC) :'''Question''': Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --] ] 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Move''' to ''Medieval western conception of Muhammad'': I was the one who gathered the information about Mahound and add a summary of it as a footnote to the Muhammad article. I think Mahound could be a section in "]" --] 02:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': Aminz' suggestion is a good one. —] 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''':Aminz, your ideas are always very helpful. :) ]<sup>]</sup> 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''''Changing my Vote''''' - I support Aminz's Idea! Altough, Christian or Catholic conception is more accurate. --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The name Mahound does appear to be a given name, although I am unsure of the frequency. See for example . --] ] 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I had heard of this term, as a derogatory reference to Muhammad, before encountering this AfD. The article adds properly encyclopedic information about its origin and use in this context. ]<small>&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</small> 11:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Redirect''': Redirect to ] or ] and then add a section of such names.</s> ]<sup>]</sup> 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
: That is a good idea. --- ] 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::'''Move''': I think Aminz idea is good, and I would strongly recommend creation of ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 03:19, 14 December 2024

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 clear keep; article title etc needs extra discussion, best done elsewhere. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Mahound

  • I embarked upon this request before the creator of the article supplied a useful rationale for the article existing here. From that, I appear to have stumbled into an edit war on another article that this was thought to be a solution to. Now, I don't agree for several reasons - forking an article is rarely a good idea when trying to create NPOV texts; I know a (non-devout, quite the reverse, but still) muslim-origin person named Mahound; the article as it stands lacks context so readers would be as lost as I was; but nevertheless, it was a good faith solution to an awful problem. Prior to my fellow editor intervening, I had speedy deleted this. Now I'm left thinking that, whilst this is still a speedy delete for several reasons, the article may have a requirement to continue to exist. So I'd like advice here. Yes folks, this is an admin who would like others to advise him. Explain to me what you think and why. Give reasons. Don't just "vote" (this isn't a vote, don't let people tell you it is) but give me reasoning. No one here is going to just count heads. If you do give reasoning, it will help me in future when I'm on CSD patrol. Thanks.➨ ЯEDVERS 20:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ➨ ЯEDVERS has described well the origin of the article. I understand the point of avoiding POV forks. I am also not committed to this article, but it seemed the right thing. The information in the article is more or less the contents of an ongoing edit war at Muhammad. My thought was that a pejorative term, if it is a notable pejorative term of a notable subject, might be more appropriate in an article under the cat of pejorative terms, rather than in the biographical article of the person involved, just as we have an article on the word Fuck as well as one on Sexual Intercourse. One is about the act, the other about the word. However, from ➨ ЯEDVERS's comments regarding a Muslim acquaintance named Mahound, the situation is perhaps more complex. If the name/term Mahound is not a pejorative term, then the claims that it is, should be removed from the Muhammad article. For individuals who are knowledgable on this subject, I would appreciate not only comments here, but also comments at talk:Muhammad. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepComment I do not think its use has been exclusively pejorative, but either way we could have a short but useful article on the name and its use in English literature and history. Tom Harrison 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe this is a POV fork, and I'll use the whole of this comment block to explain why, then give my advise in the next column. It was basically one man who wanted to remove the whole section, as it appeared, because he didn't like any mention of Mohammed in a negative context. This section has stood for months, with parts of it there for years. I might like to point out that he was immediately banned for violating 3RR and being uncivil (e.g, you are an animal; this was his fourth such block). However, when I saw the section, which others seemed to be reverting in full, it seemed like a bit of an aside to me, so I removed a good portion of it (which BostonMA has restored it nearly in full on this page). We didn't need a long discussion on this specific term, because the article is about Mohammed, not variations of his name (what does some modern cleric declaring Jihad on all who use the term have anything to do with Mohammed?).
For now, Keep the article or Rename it to Variations of the name Mohammed (with a redirect), as per the citations, but make sure this is reliable information first. This is not POV fork, as I explained above. It is also relevant: it is quite possible that people will want to find information on this name (or other variations of the name) for a research subject. It certainly doesn't fail WP:NN. I will try to remove some of the blatantly POV language, and I will put a disputed tag at the top of the article until someone can give a better description, because you're right, the information is suspicious. So I say keep the article, but only if we can come up with reliable info.-Patstuart 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Question, Patstuart, could you clarify which assertions you feel are disputed? Thanks. --BostonMA 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Well sourced.Bakaman Bakatalk 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete A single variation of Muhammad name, which is also not well-known by most, does not deserve to have a separate article. --- ابراهيم 13:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • rename A more general article that contain all of these kind of names. It will have more material in it and will help to avoid making many small articles each with only few sentences in it. Mahound could be name of a section in such an article. --- ابراهيم 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Question: Anonymous, could you please clarify what you mean by this comment? Thanks. --BostonMA 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Aminz' suggestion is a good one. —Aiden 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment:Aminz, your ideas are always very helpful. :) TruthSpreader 03:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That is a good idea. --- ابراهيم 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Move: I think Aminz idea is good, and I would strongly recommend creation of Medieval western conception of Muhammad. TruthSpreader 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
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.