Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumoured converts to 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumoured converts to Islam

Speedied - this was an snowball and was listed on CSD -- Tawker 03:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This is about as unencyclopaedic as they get, surely. A series of rumours can't make a Wikipedia article. Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (to make my vote clear). --Phronima 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a rumour mill Maustrauser 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the rumours are substantiated by publications from reputable sources. While rumours are WP:OR, referencing them is not. For example: notable conspiracy theories which obviously are at odds with the facts. --Xorox 12:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiated from reliabel sources, you say? So which of the following sources for the Prince Charles is reliable?

The Middle East Forum ("Promoting American Interests")
Militant Islam Monitor
Daniel Pipes' blog
Truth for Muslims ("bringing a comprehensive, biblical response to Islam in America")

Just zis Guy you know? 12:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Forum Quarterly and Evening Standardare reputable, though. Correct me if Im wrong.--Xorox 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East through research, publications, and educational outreach. The Forum's policy recommendations include fighting radical Islam (rather than terrorism), convincing the Palestinians that Israel is permanent, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, better managing the democratization process, and more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Forum works to improve Middle East studies in North America." - no, that sounds a lot like a bunch of POV-pushers, not at all what I would consider a reliable source.

By Evening Standard I presume you mean the ES repeating the claim made in a book, reportedly based on a statement by the Grand Mufti of Cyprus which has (as the article points out) never been confirmed by a reliable source? In other words, hearsay? Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xorox and WP:V which states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Tonywalton | Talk 12:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yup, it's about verifiablility not truth. Verfiability from reliable sources, unlike the web forums cited in this article. So let's have a category for converts to Islam. Not a list of rumoured converts, which is subject to two separate problems: repeating other people's unproven speculation; and applying categories to living people without making any change to the person's article which is likely to get seen and challenged by the editor comunity on that article. Also note that there are constitutional implications if Prince Charles were to convert to Islam - the fact that this has not been discussed in the major British news media indicates that as speculation goes it's pretty unlikely. Just zis Guy you know? 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, per all above.--Jersey Devil 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant for Wikipedia. Rumours are unencyclopedic. Samantha of Cardyke 12:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rumours...--Ton e 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. I appreciate the point about "verifiability, not truth," but the short list and low quality of the sources give me the impression that the purpose of this list is to publicize rumors being circulated about certain individuals by critics of those individuals. Thus it verges on being an attack page. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting Daniel Pipes' views. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There are many places in the Internet were gossip is published... --Francisco Valverde 13:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Prince Charles rumour is from unreliable sources. The Nation of Islam statement about the other rumour could be merged into the main Michael Jackson entry. Otherwise there is no point to this rumour-mongering. Keresaspa 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloids magazine. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This cannot be taken seriously. Rumours, IMO, can be written up in Wikipedia IF there are articles in reputable sources directly and extensively investigating the truth of the rumor. But the links in this article are just self-referencing speculation. Daniel Case 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see this list getting us into nine kinds of trouble. Not to mention, what level of rumor is sufficient? If an English King can be claimed to have been a convert because one of his minters cribbed from the Islamic creed as a decorative device, should that make the list? Pat Payne 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign :) )[reply]
Delete Rumours are by definition unsubstantiated and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just no -Doc ^ask? 21:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "notable information" here is not that H.R.H. the Prince of Wales is a convert — in which case the reliablity of the source is a big issue — but that the rumour goes around in certain circles that he is a convert — which is reliably and uncontrovertibly substantiated by the given sources. Lambiam ^Talk 00:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I wrote above again. Rumors of and by themselves are unencyclopedic. Rumors about someone or something who is, if they are encyclopedic, if they are seriously investigated elsewhere (no one has had the stones yet, I see, to actually ask The Man Who Would Be Camilla Parker-Bowles's Feminine Protection if he's aslamt or not), can merit a sentence or two in the appropriate article. Not an article in and of themselves. Daniel Case 04:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:V. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd rumors generally do not belong in Wikipedia. --Rob 07:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xorox and Tonywalton's comments. -- Karl Meier 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and JzG's other comments. Pepsidrinka 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big time Speedy Delete this article was created by a Sock Puppet. Netscott 03:14, 19 April 2006 (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.