Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killings of Muhammad

Add links
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 delete. I have given no weight to arguments by obvious spas and very little weight to non policy based arguments, The killer arguments are NPOV and the need for sources to specifically discuss this as a separately notable subject. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings of Muhammad

[edit]
List of killings of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTH/WP:SOAPBOX agenda article. Sourced largely to primary religious texts and other outdated scholarship (not just the standard nineteenth-century free books, but medieval stuff too) or poor sources. However, this wouldn't pass muster even if all the sources were excellent and recent, because taking a couple of comprehensive biographies of Muhammad and making a list of every time he ordered someone to be killed (an interesting interpretation by the article creator which includes people killed in battle and executions for lawbreakers as well as assassinations and the like), approved of someone being killed, or knew someone who was later killed (seriously, check out some of what the creator considers to be Muhammad "supporting" the killing...amusingly, it contains a couple of instances of Muhammad telling his followers not to kill the person) does not constitute a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I encourage the closing admin to consider the large number of single-purpose accounts posting here and the fact that the deletion discussion was mentioned on at least one anti-Muslim website. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a "large number". There are a few (I tagged one), including some that the nominator incorrectly tagged, apparently in an attempt to discredit opposing arguments. I corrected one,[1] and an incorrectly tagged editor commented on his own.[2] In any case, the arguments are what matter, not the votes, regardless of who make them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPAs actually are a perennial problem, particularly in this topic area, because very often they're sockpuppets either of blocked users or of users who have already voted. The fact that most haven't even attempted to address the deletion rationale is also relevant, since you're pointing out that it's about the arguments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at least two named accounts and two IPs are sock/meatpuppets. They should be discounted.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which accounts are sock or meat puppets? If you have proof have you reported them? Robert Brockway (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An RFC or peer review would have been a better avenue to get a wider community view. The nominator's rationales appear invalid, as follows:
  • WP:SYNTH does not apply here. No conclusion is being synthesized from sources. By their nature, list articles must use multiple sources to formulate the list.
  • WP:COATRACK doesn't apply, either. A coatrack is an article pretending to be about one subject when it's really a cover for another subject. That isn't the case here. This is a list article, it describes its criteria clearly, and presents a well-documented list.
  • The article doesn't rely only on primary sources. It cites numerous secondary sources, many of which appear to be scholarly works. Issues with reliability of the sources should be taken up on WP:RSN, not AfD.
  • The objection to the topic seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ascribing an agenda to the creator rather than assuming good faith. I agree that this list's scope is broader than necessary for such a list, and may suggest an agenda. But that is a reason to trim it, not delete it. I found the topic interesting from the point of view of how often an historical leader exercises their perogative to order assassinations (like the U.S. President recently did with Osama bin Laden), and I wouldn't mind seeing other lists like this if some uniform criteria can be established for them.
Finally, I observe that this article meets several of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. That suggests further improvement is in order, rather than deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article like this is inherently un-encyclopaedic. No similar article exists for any other leader, not does a similar article exist in other, established encyclopaedias. Furthermore, the criteria used to determine included individuals is flawed, as it includes people who were executed during/after battles, and it includes people who were executed according to law ( for the crimes of murder or adultery ). Never mind just being un-encyclopaedic and flawed: The article is just plain wrong. There are individuals who are pardoned, and yet are included to pad out this "list of killings." In reply to Amatulic above: Assuming good faith is very difficult in this case, when it is clearly a badly-cobbled, unresearched list. The acid test is simple: If I created a List of killings of George W. Bush and included Haditha killings and Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, would that article stay on Wikipedia ?! If the answer is no, would it be reasonable for a person to say: "But let us assume good faith. Let us keep the killing list for Bush and see if it can improved." ?! Unflavoured (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"No similar article exists for any other leader" — are you aware this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently violates WP:NPOV because of WP:UNDUE weight. It flies in the face of assuming good faith, especially in the context of the principal author's lack of contributions elsewhere. These two (attempted) edits showing that they verge on a single purpose account who sees Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. If the author reads this, I hope he takes it as a warning from the community to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner and not with some sort of political axe to grind. Dzlife (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I don't think the initial rationale of poor sourcing holds water. Nor does the argument about "other leaders"; the comparison would not be against Bush, but against Jesus or Buddha or somesuch. In which case the obvious answer would be that the "list" in their cases would be too short to be a list William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those two were military leaders. Try Moses. Unflavoured (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if Muhammad was drawn into tribal conflicts, that is a notable difference from other religious leaders. You are the second person besides the nominator to claim this is a soapbox, yet it fails to meet the description in WP:SOAPBOX. Would you explain your reasoning? What "point of view" is this list promoting? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an "opinion piece" and "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise." It's promoting the point of view that Muhammad was a killer. Let's not pretend that this isn't obvious. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't obvious to me. Muhammad was a political and military leader. Such leaders throughout history have ordered assassinations and such, including the current U.S. president, as I pointed out in my initial comment. That's hardly a controversial point to make. The perception that it "promotes" the documented facts seems like a dubious rationale for deletion.
Furthermore, considering the individuals on this list who have their own Wikipedia articles, the topic may indeed be notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a cursory glance reveals 5 individuals on the list who are notable enough to have their own articles and who were pardoned, not killed. Notable enough to create a List of people saved by Muhammad, perhaps ?! Unflavoured (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not create a [[List of people saved by Muhammad]? However, we must realize that the use of assassination has been very important throughout the history of Arabia and Islamic expansion. The very word "assassin" has Arabic roots. I'm having a hard time seeing why this is so controversial. ~~Walid al-Hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.162.28 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — 24.62.162.28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So? As I said in the deletion argument, even if all the sources were excellent, this is still not a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sort of list nearly always ends up as original research and its difficult to see how it avoids a POV perception. Sourcing on this will always be dubious and material lacks context --Snowded TALK 16:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so long as we stick to reliable sources and to the subject, then I see no problem. Snowded's argument that this could attract original research is true of any article. If we follow this logic, we should delete all famous biographies because they demonstrably attract vandals. In theory, Wikipedia doesn't work for this reason. Fortunately, Wikipedia works just fine in practice.
As far as POV goes, this article simply lists facts and sourced details and has no POV. Indeed, Muslims study Muhammad in great detail because he serves as an example of Godly behavior (though acknowledged as not perfect). Ignoring any aspect of Muhammad's life reflects a strong POV rather than the other way around. Rklawton (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  1. "Sourced largely to primary religious texts " false, there are 100+ secondary sources on that article, from different diverse publishers and authors of different religions (but mainly Muslims). I just added more. Some of which are:
    • Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Ismaʼil R. Al-Faruqi, The life of Muḥammad: Volume 1976, Part 2, p. 223.
    • Montgomery Watt, W.. "Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam
    • Stillman, Norman (1979). The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. p. 13. ISBN 0827601166
    • Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 126, ISBN 9780806138602
    • De Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad, Darussalam, A Biography of the Prophet of Islam (Vol 1 & 2), p. 433.
    • Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Islamic Book Trust (1994), The Life of Muhammad, p.354
  2. "taking a couple of comprehensive biographies of Muhammad and making a list of every time he ordered someone to be killed"
    • Maybe it would be a better idea if i named them "assassinations". As assassinations are more notable
  3. "check out some of what the creator considers to be Muhammad "supporting" the killing...amusingly, it contains a couple of instances of Muhammad telling his followers not to kill the person", give me 1 example. I cant think of any, except maybe the "blind jew" whose case is different.
  4. "It's promoting the point of view that Muhammad was a killer", so in other words. I cant create an article about Muhammad if it shows something which maybe be negative, even if it has reliable sources???? I am not pushing an agenda. I just want to contribute to the project.--Irvinga04 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wahshi pardoned, not killed. Abu Sufyan pardoned, not killed. Hind bint Utbah pardoned, not killed. Ikrimah pardoned, not killed. Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy pardoned, not killed. Unflavoured (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that would be justification for trimming the article, not deleting it. I note also that the creator has just made several improvements to the sourcing today. This is clearly a work in progress, so a deletion discussion may be premature, as I indicated earlier. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming !? If we took out people killed during/directly after battles, and people who were pardoned, there would be something like ~15 people left out of the current 43. Unflavoured (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. This list is about the people Muhammad ordered killed, so technically it can include those he ordered killed but pardoned
2. You claim that only 15 articles would be left if you removed the ones who pardoned. Although anyone who checks the article knows that is not true
3. Some of those who were pardoned have "conflicting reports" on whether they were pardoned. I pressed ctrl + f, i see only 10 where possibly :::::pardoned. 3 of those 10 are said to have been killed by other sources.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvinga04 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese is referring to commentary about this article that occurred before this AfD even existed, therefore the allegation of "canvassing" has no merit. See Talk:Muhammad#Killings of Muhammad for details. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unflavoured is right - this opens the door to 'List of killings by God', 'List of kilings by President/General Whatshisname', etc. It's here to promote a POV and it is going to be seen as an attack piece (I see it that way). Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can sort of see how it might be seen as POV. But how an article might be perceived isn't really relevant. That argument is a slippery slope fallacy. As I said before, I hardly think it's controversial to list assassinations ordered by a political/military leader. That has been the perogative of all leaders since recorded human history began. So what? The main issue to be considered here, I think, is "how is the article useful or encyclopedic?" I think it is, and explained why. Others may disagree. That's why we're here in this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if there were a list of assassinations ordered by a political/military leader, then we could talk about it, but this is a messy pile of, among other things, deaths in battle, executions for lawbreakers and prisoners of war, and cases where someone requested permission to kill the person and Muhammad gave it, as well as far more cases than I initially noticed of people that Muhammad specifically said not to kill and people who apparently died in their beds of old age. This is not salvageable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to renaming this article to Assassinations ordered by Muhammad and revising the article appropriately, provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short. Assasination, as others pointed out, is a notable aspect of Arabian history, and this article shows one piece of that. Entries in the list should be retained where sources disagree, and the sources shouldn't be cherry picked to support one view or another. I'll point out that in Muhammad's position as a leader, giving permission to kill someone isn't fundamentally different from giving the order. Simply asserting "this is not salvageable" doesn't make it so. As far as I can tell, it is salvageable, this discussion should have taken place on the article talk page, and this deletion discussion is premature. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short" - that's a big caveat. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about addressing the deletion rationale? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. If sourcing is an issue, improve them. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC) (Struck - block evading sock. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a source somewhere that indicates that "killings of Muhammad" is a topic? If not, we don't just wait around for someone to find one. If sources don't discuss it, it's not a topic, and pulling together material from other sources to try to create a topic that doesn't exist is original synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One couldn't even properly source out a piece called People that George W. Bush didn't like, let alone a purported list of killings "endorsed" 1300 years ago. The topic, including "approvals" (no doubt as a POV-driven effort to swell the list), is overly broad and unscholarly. Amatulic, above, has the right idea: "I wouldn't object to renaming this article to Assassinations ordered by Muhammad and revising the article appropriately, provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short." Carrite (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would face the same problem in that no one has even tried to provide a source about assassinations ordered by Muhammad, instead choosing to cherry-pick incidents from biographies. Also that, as I said to Amatulic, "provided that the resulting list isn't trivially short" is a big caveat - I cut its size by a quarter just by removing people who were not killed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather a cop-out - would you rather see Wikipedia used as a tool of religious hatred and xenophobia? How about actually addressing the deletion rationale? This is not a topic - sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad," and cherry-picking events from biographies of Muhammad in an obvious attempt to make a political point will not magically create a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the fact that we can actually deny that some of these people were killed (I just had to remove more than ten entries from the list in question)...so? "But it's true!" has never been a good argument for a deletion discussion, because if sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad," it frankly doesn't matter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them aren't assassinations, and it seems like the list will be trivially short if the non-assassinations are removed. I just reduced the list size by a quarter by removing the people who weren't actually killed - what do you think it'll look like if we also take out the ones who were killed in battle, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This is not an article; it is a list. At best, if any of the alledged victims have articles about them, they could be tagged with a CATEGORY: Killed by Muhammad. It all fairness, then similar categories should be created for the vixtims of other high-profile personalities or institutions - CATEGORY: Killed by Torquemada, CATEGORY: Killed by French revolutionaries, etc. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's not considered a topic. A religious or political figure is usually accountable of assassinations and murder when it's specifically done to get higher authority..etc. However, when he has a military role, it's a POV to isolate the treaty-violations and details about the death when it's a common reaction at the time. There's no such topic for a military figure, and most of the list is misusing sources and taking texture out-of context. Each item belongs in separate articles, so I don't see a reason to make a list here. The result, based on Synthesizing selective material, automatically concludes that he's a figure that enjoys killing (when most reasons are hidden). I can fill each description with violation tags that can't be fixed, but it ain't worth the time. ~ AdvertAdam talk 02:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A case of an editor using WP:IDONTLIKEIT hidden beneath weak, faulty logic. Religious books are used as sources in plenty of articles, and for this particular one there are other reputable sources. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia. Just because the topic makes some people uncomfortable, is no reason to acquiesce and hide factual information. Trying to influence admins by smearing editors who vote to *keep* as 'single purpose accounts' and possible stooges of an anti-Muslim website is a well known tactic advocated by those with little ammo to debate with. I resent the implication. Keep it. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is well-sourced encyclopediadic content on the topic of a major world religion. It is no less important than, say, list of Apostle Paul's visits to Jerusalem, History of Christian Theology, or the list of Crusades at the page, Crusades. Bisqwit (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be no reason to delete the article. It is informative, WP:NPOV and well-sourced, conforming well to wikipedia standards. Moreover, other such lists exist on Wikipedia, like List of assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War or Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists for example. I agree with Amatulić on most of his points - the article can be improved, but shouldn't be removed. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — 79.183.30.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy on no original research/no original synthesis? No sources have written about "killings of Muhammad" - this is a list of cherrypicked incidents from biographies. Imagine for a moment that no books exist on Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution, and that we only have biographies and Civil War histories to tell us about things like Ex parte Merryman - wouldn't you agree that a "List of constitutional violations of Abraham Lincoln," which not only included suspension of habeas corpus and the like but also times when Lincoln wrote in his diary that he disagreed with a certain principle, times when he insisted on upholding the constitution, and times when he knew someone who had violated a constitutional principle. That's what we've got here - each incident may be worth discussing, but to indiscriminately lump them together, along with a lot of irrelevant, misleading, or flat-out wrong information (as in this list), with the transparent aim of making a political point, is at best a WP:NOR violation if no sources have discussed the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well aware of WP:NOR. I do not think reading a canonical hadith is considered original research. I also fail to see a difference between a Hadith and a Gospel. As to your other objections, they only mean the article's quality could be improved, with irrelevant/poorly supported by sources/flatly wrong entries removed. As to WP:SOAP - I do see how this particular collection of facts may stir up a heated debate, though theological, not political. But this is not a reason to remove a factually correct article. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI-I have a dynamic IP and no account. No wonder system finds "few or no other edits". 79.183.30.82 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading primary religious texts such as hadith does present an OR problem - that's why we have Template:Religious text primary. Again, can you provide a source that discusses the ostensible topic of the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search reveals over 4 million results on "killings by prophet muhammad". Most of the hits are, of course, off topic completely or suffer from WP:Notability issues, but this shows the topic has been extensively discussed and researched. I could use other search terms, like "assasinations", with similar results. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're just being willfully mendacious, Roscelese. Any basic history of Arabia discusses the military career of Muhammad, and his strategy of targeted killings as a military and political tool. Muhammad's actions in this respect have been cited and analyzed in Islamic law as to what constitutes a lawful ruse de guerre and who constitutes a lawful combatant. Walid al-Hindi 24.62.162.28 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete unless reliable sources can be provided that show that the topic "Killings of Muhammad", as a whole, has been the subject of multiple, detailed discussions in reliable sources. That is our criteria for the notability of lists, and what separates a notable list from non-notable lists. To keep a list, we must show that the concept underlying this list is one that is already notable; we cannot fabricate our own lists by pulling together a bunch of individually notable things and creating a synthetic topic ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the answer above. The subject, at first glance, looks notable and has been discussed in multiple millions of places. 79.183.30.82 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits mean nothing as far as we are concerned. We need reliable sources. If there are so many, feel free to comb through them looking for reliable ones; I'm not convinced you'll actually find any. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese's argument above, that we need reliable sources that discuss this topic as presented (a list), seems bogus to me. Roscelese's argument stretches WP:SYN to the breaking point and reveals a lack of understanding of Arabic history and historical military leaders. Assassination is a well-known topic in that context. If you look at our featured list articles you'll find a few that don't necessarily have sources describing the list topic but describe individual items in the list. Why delete the article if it can be improved?
Furthermore, it took me all of 90 seconds to find this source:
"...assassination was becoming Muhammad's primary tool of influencing events..."
""Weakened militarily, Muhammad shifted the struggle to political grounds using assassination as a means to inflict violence."
...and several more examples, more than trivial mentions.
Gabriel, Richard A (2007). Muhammad: Islam's First Great General. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-8061-3860-2.
Reliable sources for this should be abundant, and should put this silly argument to rest. Roscelese has a valid point about sources, but that point is really an argument for improvement, not deletion. This deletion nomination should be withdrawn if the only remaining reason to delete is about WP:SYN. That's an invalid argument according to sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I have added this source to the article, in the "Further reading" section. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. Got any more sources, since notability of a topic requires multiple sources? We do not generally base articles on work by one person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty more, just scanning google books. Another example, discussing whether Muhammad had people "put to death" versus "assassinated". Calcutta review, Volumes 56-57 By University of Calcutta.[3] Took me another 2 minutes to find. You don't seem to understand that we don't delete an article because the article lacks sources, we delete it if there are no sources. The sources are easy to find, as I demonstrated. As stated by others, assassination is an integral part of Arabian history. Rather than create further WP:POINTy debates because you object to the topic, why not see if the article can be improved? This is a WP:DEADHORSE. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rescue to be done here because this is not a topic. It is, as it has been since the beginning, a WP:SOAPy collection of cherrypicked incidents from sources of varying reliability. The Calcutta Review article has a few things going against it, but the most relevant one is that it's an anti-Muslim tract and makes no secret of that fact. Sourcing ostensibly historical articles to Islamophobic attack pieces is not generally a good idea. (And if this was the best you could come up with, I'm really doubting that sources are "easy to find.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple people have explained to you that it is a topic. Sources I have found clearly indicate that it is a topic. Anyone familiar with Arabian history would know that it is a topic. I'm busy at work today earning a living, so I apologize if the sources I took 3 minutes out of my busy day to find don't meet your standards; that issue should be taken up on WP:RSN, not here. Your characterization of one source as "anti-Muslim" doesn't have any bearing on whether it qualifies as verifiable and reliable; a source need not be neutral to qualify. The point is that sources exist, and we don't delete articles if sources exist. This is still a WP:DEADHORSE, so why keep flogging it? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another by Maxime Rodinson: "Assassination had relieved [Muhammad] of the problem of a number of influential enemies."[4] From Muhammad: prophet of Islam; apparently this book is regarded as a key work of scholarship on the topic of Islam. I'm sure I could go on, but I really don't have time today. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goody, one sentence taken from a paragraph that doesn't discuss the subject! That certainly alleviates my concerns about this material being cherry-picked! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the context given, it further establishes that it's a topic. It's mentioned more than once. I suspect no amount of sourcing will satisfy you. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT as me and others have repeatedly pointed out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, implying that it's a topic but the author forgot to talk about it is a wonderful conclusion. We can also look at WP:ILIKEIT, too. ~ AdvertAdam talk 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The killings which never took place, either because the person escaped or Muhammad pardoned them, have already been removed by Roscolese. Though i think they should have been kept in the article, maybe in an "Attempted killings" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estoves (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OR Merge with main article. Not WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR because it's a list (see Amatulić vote) . Not WP:SOAPBOX Concentration of facts does not imply an agenda if sources view and discuss it in such a fashion (see also non-article sources ITT), lists by their nature concentrate facts and higher test standards must be applied. Both arguments against the sources do not hold water ("primary religious texts and other outdated scholarship" is factually untrue and would be irrelevant if it was, the events took place 1500 years ago; "wouldn't pass muster even if all the sources were excellent and recent" implies what it argues against.) Not WP:UNDUE because there are no alternate opinions if the list answers the criterion by which it is arranged. Lack of WP precedent is factually untrue, see for example List of postal killings or List of killings and massacres in the British Mandate for Palestine to which same argument can be applied. However recommend to improve by specification (e.g. "List of notable killings authorized by Muhammad" etc) and attentive verification of sources. Unfortunately a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zombiestan (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Zombiestan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid, not to use. Why would you assume that the existence of List of postal killings validates the existence of this article? I just nominated it for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POINT. It's disruptive here, as well as there. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good list. Now that I know it exists, why shouldn't I nominate it for deletion? Am I now barred from nominating it for deletion because it was mentioned here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting words in other people's mouths now? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason the list of massacres in Mandate Palestine is pertinent under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exception, it is a list of events and sources seem to treat it as such and its size may warrant a separate article. Besides, this is not my main, or strongest argument, neither is it counter to any one you listed as a cause for AfD. Tagging me with SaP despite this account being active since 2008 only reinforces my view WP:IDONTLIKEIT Zombiestan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Except it isn't well-referenced. The sources don't discuss "killings of Muhammad" - they discuss the life of Muhammad, and cherry-picking incidents from said life to build a soapbox to stand on is a violation of WP:SYNTH. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False assertion. See the Muir reference. It goes into significant detail about various assassinations. You are stretching WP:SYN to the breaking point. A list article need not have sources that discuss the topic of the list, if there is enough information in sources to compile a list that is informative, as this one is. There are some examples of this in our featured lists. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, an explicitly anti-Muslim tract about how Muslims really like killing people is a poor source. It wouldn't be an appropriate source if it were posted on JihadWatch today, and it's not more appropriate because it was published in the nineteenth century. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its referenced well. I agree with Amatulics reasoning as well as Zombiestan. Furthermore, the claim that because its 1500 years old and uses old historical sources. Does defeat the argument proposed. As you need old sources for something that happened 1500 years ago. But thats not the point, this article uses an enormous amount of secondary sources--Estoves (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC) — Estoves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Are you planning on addressing the deletion rationale at any point, viz., that this is synthesis of events from sources that aren't about killings of Muhammad? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning on addressing the fact that all of the deletion rationales, including the synthesis argument, have already been addressed by me and others? Simply asserting over and over that your rationale hasn't been addressed doesn't make it so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed those arguments, poor as they are, but just keep on sticking your fingers in your ears. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it civil please. If you and another editor can't convince each other then sit back and let the AfD takes its course. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to where? Improve how, when the necessary reliable sources discussing the topic of the article are absent? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which option you'd prefer, and which article you believe it should be merged to? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider reading the deletion arguments and responding to them. In particular, "It's interesting" is an argument to avoid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right. It is useful for someone who is interested in Muhammad biography and ideas. A reader would learn (from the facts of his biography) that he advocated killings, unlike Jesus, Ghandi or Lev Tolstoi. That's interesting. Biophys (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the problem. With the flawed criteria for inclusion, this article implies that he advocated killings, when in truth many of those included in the list were actually pardoned, not killed. Jesus and Ghandi are not military leaders. Try Moses. Unflavoured (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion to change the of into by. Bisqwit (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That addresses exactly zero of the problems raised with this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will never cease to amaze me that people think WP:ITSUSEFUL is a good argument rather than a bad argument. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to the policy tells that argument of the kind "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." is a good argument. Yes, it does. Biophys (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merging with Criticism of Muhammad or Criticism of Islam might be reasonable, except these articles are already big. Hence it makes more sense keeping such supplementary lists separately per readability reasons. Biophys (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_killings_of_Muhammad&oldid=1138014148"