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. Michig (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nonsense article, a polemic of sorts, or an attempt at polemic. Its sources are blogs and an anti-Islam wiki. Quick, someone cry censorship. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I've been censored :)

• Delete as above, on specific grounds of WP:POLEMIC and soapboxing, and more general grounds of being completely non-notable. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 04:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject isn't notable; article makes no claim of notability. This is more screed from aggrieved editors who now realize they can't get their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak sources, subject isn't actually wp:notable, article makes no real claim of notability. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that serious sources have treated this as a topic. Blogs do not an article make. This essay applies here, IMO. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Also clear PoV pushing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The three references in the article are unreliable. The fist one is user generated, and the other two are blogs with no indication of reliability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources. No indication that any credible sources allege the existence of such bias. Finally, the content of the "article" has nothing to do with its title. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unencyclopedic personal polemic, failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, and probably speediable as nonsense under G1, but never mind, deletion at AfD will suit its lack of content perfectly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per all above and because article uses unreliable sources and is basically an essay. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 11:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW delete for many reasons, not the least of which is lack of sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While there is probably a way to have a well written article on this subject, it would need to be based on reliable source articles, and reliable source coverage of anything about Wikipedia is still in a fairly early stage, and what there is tends to be focused on notions of some sort of Western, American and European, especially British bias. Beyond this, the article as written seems to really be more about anti-Anti-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, that is a refusal to give equal ground or consider as reliable sources polemics against Islam, not a special treatment of Islamic sources. Lastly those at Getreligion.org would cringe at this articles basic assumption that there is one Islam, that could possibly be uniformly the beneficiary of bias, when in fact some of the harshest screeds against some forms of Islam, such as the book The Two Faces of Islam were written by practitioners of different forms of Islam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all the above. An essay not acceptable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. This has to be a pretty clear violation of all three despite the research's short length. I read this and just thought: "Is the writer being serious?" MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:KILLITWITHFIRE and WP:SNOW! Hmmm, I see that the former link leads to WP:TNT, but please only blow it up and do not start over. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:17, 24 April 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.