Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamization of knowledge

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 keep – i.e., not delete. There's currently no consensus as to whether this content should be merged with another article, but that discussion should take place on the article talk page(s). Sandstein (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of knowledge

The article does not cite any reference since May 2007, I commented twice on the talk page ([1] and [2]) about the absence of references, but no editors were interested to reply. Imad marie (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic philosophy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic philosophy. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does cite a reference: the book titled: Islām and secularism by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Also the nominator "blanked" the article, ignoring this solid reference. See [3] The lack of understanding by the nominator regarding references and his or her odd blanking of the article makes me think that this nomination is not so legit. Has the nominator even read the article? Or just looked at its arrangement and not seeing a reference in the usual ___location decided to start making wild accusations and just behaving badly? --Firefly322 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yes, I do look for references in their usual ___location, where else should I look? Second, I didn't file this AfD until I posted two comments on the talk page and no editor was interested to reply. This is a controversial subject, if any editor wants to publish it, he should post references in their "usual ___location", and he should reply in the talk page. Imad marie (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current references are obvious to anyone who even skims the article. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Imad, could you explain why you blanked the article as remarked upon by Firefly above? Olaf Davis | Talk 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the page after I posted two comments on the talk page objecting on the lack of refs, and I got no replies. So I was under the impression that this page actually had no "owners" and that someone posted his WP:OR one year ago. What I did is that I deleted unreferenced material which I did not believe was wrong. Imad marie (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course no article has individual owners, but I suppose you mean people willing to improve it? Either way I think this AfD (or a prod if it were less controversial) is a better course of action than blanking the page. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *Article is well referenced. I was able to find references and links to leading figures and their works via the article, including Ismail al-Faruqi, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Ziauddin Sardar, Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas. Analysis is decent. References are decent. Nomination for deletion is an overlooking of details at best. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite those guys directly. As far as I see, non of them qualifies to be WP:RS, if you want to cite them, you have to find reliable third-party sources that talks about them, which I don't see in this article. Correct me if I'm missing anything. Imad marie (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since they have their own articles, it is acceptable to quote them as a reliable source, as they are notable scholars. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references look acceptable, but need cleaned up- they are included as text in part of the article (including the ISBN number of the book), rather than in a references section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References and searching show notability for this topic, although this may need attention from an expert and/or an editor fluent in Arabic. Some of the front half of hte article comes across as WP:SYN, which may be where Imad marie's objections arise. We can't write "this primary source says this, that primary source says that, and thus" because that's introducing synthesis. There are, however, sufficient secondary sources from which we could cite such connections safely. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important and notable subject. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, does not seem to be specifically notable. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Islamic philosophy, by having this page re-direct there. It goes without saying that only the content that meets WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV should be merged.Bless sins (talk) 20:46, 10 May 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.