Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misconceptions about the Shi'a

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 cleanup and merge; I have no idea how to do this, so I'll just slap some templates on the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion since it has a thesis and a theme (misconceptions about the shi'a). Essentially, it is a POV. I don't agree or disagree with it, I just don't see any reason for it to be it's own article. Hence I belive it should be merged into the shi'a article.

• Merge Sethie 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and heavily edit for POV. --AlexWCovington (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Any article beginning with "misconceptions about" is inherently POV. Delete. Stifle 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is valid, there are aboundant Misconceptions about the Shi'a, factualy verifiable.

For example, Shi'a do NOT belive Ali should have been the last prophet, BUT many people have the Misconception that Shi'a belive such a thing. It is perfecly NPOV to claim that people have a missconception in such a case. Another example is about people haveing the Misconception of Shi'a belivingtheir Imams as equals to the prophet. They do not belive that, hence it is NPOV to claim that being a Misconception.

However, if that is not the case for some reason i can not think of, the vote should be "rename", not "delete". I stress the importance of this information being represented in Wikipedia --Striver 11:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced the informtation should be kept, but why as a seperate article? Sethie 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that virtualy every single section in the Shi'a article has its own seperate artciel. --Striver 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not privy to that information, so your response has accomplished nothing.... Sethie 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i meant is that every section in the Shi'a article has a main article, otherwise the Shi'a article would be way too long. Just take a look, all sections there have a main article. In fact, ill do as you proposed, ill create a section in the Shi'a article leading to this article as the main article. --Striver 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Khalid! 13:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How many times do we have to vote on this? Why dont people respect already cast voting results?--Zereshk 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until they are easily accesible, posted on the talk page, etc., probably forever. Btw, 2 months ago, I posted that I thought an AfD was in order on the talk page, no one responded. Sethie 03:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was already voted on.--Zereshk 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah- the results were- 3 keep, 4 delete (2 of these said delete and merge) , 4 merge Sethie 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge --- It's a POV fork, pure and simple. Zora 09:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vote is lining up predictably -- the Shi'a editors are voting to keep and everyone else is voting merge. Zora 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge after MASSIVE decontamination for unabashed POVness and appalling composition.--AladdinSE 10:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Zora and AladdinSE. Pepsidrinka 12:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Ya Ali 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge THE WIKI IS FOR POOOOOVVVV FOOOOOORKKKKK Project2501a 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC) The Internet is for porn[reply]

• keep. --Nightryder84 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep.based on facts.. Zaidi 14:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. why don't we have 2 pages, one for the shi'i POV and another from the sunni POV --202.249.26.84 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The misconceptions presented are a matter of fact for a lot of people who believe the myths about Shi'a. It's a good article and worthy information to have here. The myths about Shi'a are far deeper than even this article presents and quite vicious. I know this from first hand expereince in and outside of the middle east. What is wrong with having an article that addresses this?-- jadecell

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.