Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infidel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 speedy keep, by overwhelming consensus. El_C 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infidel

Infidel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is tending towards two problematic extremes, one towards a dictionary entry belonging on wikitionary, the other towards a narrative that begins to look like a fork to other pages. Tigeroo 08:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Not the best article on this difficult topic, but needs improvement, not removal. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfectly legitimate topic which is exhaustively referenced. Nick mallory 09:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep What? Arrow740 09:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't happen to see any of the problems which you claim apply to this article. The only "dictionary"-esque element is the introduction, which is perfectly normal. I'm not seeing the second possibility at all. Care to elaborate?--C.Logan 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The question had been asked if this grouping was tending towards WP:OR or had become a strange fork because it was taking "Infidel" beyond it's usage in English to translations elsewhere (even if sourced as directly related to the word Infidel) and thus wandering off from the article topic.--Tigeroo 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep:(edit conflict) the article does need some cleanup, but it's an important topic that should have an article. This might even be a WP:SNOW keep. --HAL2008talk 10:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: exhaustively referenced Harlowraman 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not exhaustively referenced (see Judaism section), but shouldn't be deleted Recurring dreams 11:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's got 16 references. Nick mallory 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Referenced, encyclopedic. Reinistalk 12:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep per above. I disagree with the nom -- this is more than just a dicdef. Article simply needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Infidel (ecclesiastical term) with a see also section that links to other similar words/ concepts in other religions and leave a wikitionary link in the disambiguation page to the dicdef--Tigeroo 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is definitely a proper topic — consider how well-sourced this is! Nyttend 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not really about sources but is the narrative one that fits within the the definition of WP:NOR or about how it may be defined. See the edit history.--Tigeroo 09:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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.