Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of Idol Temples

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 as original research. KrakatoaKatie 12:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Idol Temples

Contested prod. Not sure what this article intends to achieve. Is it a list? Is it an article? Possibly POV-fork of Idolatry. In any case, there may be an article to write on the ritual despoiling of places of worship as a form of conquest, but this isn't it. What we have here is OR through synthesis, a list of temples, a bunch of humungous quotes from primary sources, and lots of external links to spammy/partisan/non-notable/extremist websites. Of course, someone'sgone to the trouble of running a google scholar search on "temple destruction" and put in the first five results as 'references', but there's no link between that list and the article, or indeed the title. I would suggest deleting from scratch and, in due course, the subject will be covered in an article with a more comprehensible (ie not made-up) name and non-OR contents. Hornplease 23:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. That has to be one of the most.. interesting displays of OR I've seen in a bit. Throwing a list together and some primary source quotes doesn't make an article on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of destroyed temples or something. The subject might be worth covering, but not as it is now. There's no context, just some copied text. Crazysuit 05:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't qualify as an article or a legitimate topic. With all of these OR issues, I can't even figure out what they were trying to push with this one. Are these put together as if they are part of some general phenomenon? Are we supposed to sympathize with the poor idols? I'm not sure, but regardless of the purpose this thing is not fit for Wikipedia at all. The Behnam 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose is to propagate, or popularize, the narrative that monotheistic religions have established and demonstrated power by defacing "pagan" images. (Which, of course, this article doesn't do.) I'm surprised they didnt dump in Golden calf: Exodus 32:19 while they were at it. It is impeccably sourced. Hornplease 05:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I don't see the OR claim, its a list of destroyed temples. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its all the massive quotes at the end and the claim of synthesis in the introductory paragraph. Hornplease 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's POV, OR and it's a lousy article with no discernible purpose. Destroy. --Folantin 07:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article and may be developed further .Intothefire 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes. Minus the quotes, the article is just a list of temples/idols that were destroyed. This can easily be achieved with a category (a subcategory of Category:Destruction). The topic is not unencyclopedic, but in its current form, the article is worthy of deletion. utcursch | talk 09:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Teardrop onthefire 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article serves no purpose other than being an biased list, and a series of quotes. This article violates WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#INFO. IP198 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially a notable topic, but a list of links to a few examples, and a selection of long quotes from well-known sources does not make an article. The Gibbon is a famous passage, but it is undoubtedly where it belongs, in full, in Wikisource. DGG (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Perhaps I wouldn't object to a list, but this awful article has to go. Moreschi ^Talk 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - the narrative is useful, the list is not. Get rid of the list, or at least turn it in to some kind of narrative. -- Roleplayer 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What narrative? The only text is quotes from primary sources, except for a couple of OR-y lines at the beginning... Hornplease 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the quotes. They can be expanded into narrative fairly easily. -- Roleplayer 00:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large potential for polemical content (see current version), low potential for useful, encyclopedic content.--Kitrus 08:03, 3 September 2007 (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.