Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casuals United

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 Snowball keep Clearly notable, needs fixing not deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casuals United

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

This article takes an extreme racist tone. It presents slurs against British Muslims as unchallenged facts. Most of the sources used don't even mention the subject itself- for instance, there is no mention of Casuals United in any of the sources in the section about the protest against the Iraq War. Quotes from the movement's leaders are allowed to stand unchallenged, despite painting Muslims as "Islamists" intent on a "jihad against Britain". The only criticism is so minimal as to be meaningless - saying that X is opposed by obscure group Y is not enough to make a meaningful rebuttal to the lengthy, quoted hate speech.

While I accept it is possible the author did not intend this, it is nonetheless what this came out as. Unless it can be fixed, top to bottom, this should be deleted from Wikipedia as an attack page. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Christianity is the only way. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The allegations by User:Shoemaker's Holiday appear to indicate a complete misunderstanding of the position, as discussed at Talk:Main Page#Casuals United. The article itself is in no way racist - it reports the existence of a racist group. The slurs against Muslims are not "unchallenged facts" - they are verbatim quotes from its organisers, and, had there been any quotes available by those opposed to the group, they would (or should) have been included. The citation for the quote is not incorrect, as wrongly suggested by Shoemaker's Holiday - it is this article, correctly referenced. The whole article should indeed be improved, based on reliable sources - but the group itself meets notability criteria, and the article itself should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That violates Wikipedia:FRINGE#Quotations. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 15:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that it "needs to be carefully contextualized as a particular point-of-view", I would agree. In my opinion, it is. I wouldn't expect that any reader would treat an avowed member of a football hooligan gang as a reliable source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears adequately sourced and notable. If the article is POV in any way that can be fixed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is ridiculous to accuse an article dealing with a group opposed to islamism of being racist. Islamism is a facist ideology like nazism that spans all races. It's true though that there is an Arabian racist attitude towards non-Arabian muslims(and non-muslims of course. 93.161.104.222 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Politically motivated point nom. And I say that a left-winger! Francium12 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to have acquired some extremely pointy keeps as well (I do not mean yours). DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I dont think that contributions such as "Christianity is the only way" require any further comment. Francium12 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I wasn't being "pointy" - but I was annoyed! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The problems are ones that can easily be solved by judicious editing. The nominator's statement doesn't say anything about why this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, OR, or whatever else, so the content concerns are not reasons for deletion. If there are problems, either edit them out or just plaster the article with cleanup tags. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the groups meets the threshold of notability; that is, it is mentioned in multiple, reliable sources. Neutrality concerns are grounds to improve and alleviate, but not to delete. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (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.