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 keep. This looks like a case of WP:SNOWBALL for keeping; note that merging or renaming also implies keep. If the consensus builds toward merging or renaming, that should be discussed on the article talk page; it isn't a debate that belongs in AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Burn a Koran Day

International Burn a Koran Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publicity stunt by a minuscule group of Floridan bigots. WP:CRYSTAL applies, as no books have yet to be burnt. The title is misleading, as the event is in no way "International", and the any encyclopedic "content" could be placed into any number of existing articles. Pure propaganda, to be deleted with malice. Physchim62 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was closed as a speedy keep here, after only 26 minutes of listing. I notified the editor who made the decision to close the debate here and, having no response during the time that that editor deemed suitable for discussion, I have decided to reopen the discussion on this page. I note that this edit shows that there is at least some support for deletion of the article among other editors. WP:SNOW is inappropriate at such an early stage, and accusations of WP:POINT are pure bad faith. Physchim62 (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - Following comments here and on the talk page the article has since been renamed to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning controversy to better reflect the contents and the notability which is the controversy rather than the actual day. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment re: "Although the naming of this day has already achieve notoriety, this is entirely due to its inflammatory nature." - Wikipedia institutionally does not care where notariety (or in it's own parlance, notability) comes from. The value of the source of notability is a subject for opinion, the reality of there being large numbers of referenced secondary sources is fact. Fact trumps opinion. I see that someone has removed the non-admin closure so I won't perform it again (I'm not an admin), but I'll repeat that this is a case of WP:SNOW and should be treated as such. The event is distasteful, but it's unquestionably newsworthy. -Markeer 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply While your personal level of awareness of a news story is undoubtedly important, I'll request that you read WP:SNOW in context. Given the number of speedy keep suggestions (with arguments) and the extremely large number of citations on the article itself, the likelihood of any responsible admin closing this debate with a deletion verdict is as close to nil as possible. You do not want to give attention to this event or this group, fine. I personally applaud your opposition to the situation as I will (again) state that I would find such an event reprehensible. But my personal opinion means no more than yours in this kind of situation. The group and this planned event have become a notable topic in news and government, prompting articles and commentary by officials. It is therefore notable by wikipedia's guidelines and best practices. Wikipedia is not censored, and it does not have any specific point of view, so the nature of this event should not (and almost certainly will not) change the outcome of this AfD nomination. -Markeer 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for you're reading suggestions! If I might make one in return, it would be WP:NOTNEWS. Simply because a subject has been discussed in newspapers for a few days does not make it notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. I noted my ignorance of the "name" of this "event" simply because I don't live within the U.S. news-cocoon. Public book-burnings (even just across the United States) on a single day for a single reason would indeed be a notable topic for an article, perhaps comparable to the Kristallnacht, for example. Thankfully, we seem to be far from such a situation, so we treat the event under normal notability criteria: nothing's happened so there's nothing to write about. We have a pastor in Florida, leading (and so paid by) a congregation of about fifty souls in Florida who says he's going to burn the Qu'ran on Saturday, just because he thinks muslims are dangerous. Several people speak out to say that his actions would be objectionable. Neither the proposed actions nor the reactions are unprecedented in any way. The subject is of Islamophobia is already treated in other Wikipedia articles, and even this mini-congregation has its own article. Surely the oweness is on people to say why this event is so obviously "significant" in the medium-to-long term as to merit special discussion, over and above any other acts of book burning or Islamophobia or any other discussion of the acts of this "church". Physchim62 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but when there is absolutely huge media coverage of an event, and a huge response from governments, religious leaders, senior military it is notable for an article. If the event goes ahead this issue will not go away, there will be a response from the muslim world as they go crazy in opposition to peoples freedom to express themselves. This is like the Danish cartoon controversy, which has good article status. If that is justified, then this article is too. International coverage and the response to it has been extreme. I totally agree that this should not be notable, but the worlds media, religions and governments have decided it is and wikipedia can not ignore this. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are not really comparable since the Danish caricature affair was not a universally condemned nutjob. There were reasonably serious, fairly sane, well-established individuals of the establishment, not just in Denmark, but all around the world, who supported not merely the principle, but the act itself, and the cartoons were published in a major Danish newspaper. This is a small group of religious zealots getting up to predictably inflammatory antics that lack any kind of notable support. At least for now, separating the book burning from the article on the church makes as much as sense to me as starting a separate article on Jimmy Jump's latest World Cup pitch invasion. Peter Isotalo 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are absolutely comparable in their relevant features. What you bring up as an elleged factor to establish or disprove notability, i.e. whether the contentious act is rational or has supporters, is however wholly irrelevant. Our notability guidelines do not take into account whether something is rational or condoned, only whether it has attracted the attention of reliable sources. Apparently you are not the only editor who harbours this misconception. But it is a misconception and for the lack of innate ability to see why this is so, the remaining remedy would be to update yoursel(f)(ves) on what Wikipedia's policies have to say on this. __meco (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making is that this incident, unlike the Danish controversy, is just about entirely dependent on the actions of a small fringe group and could just as well be covered within the confines of the article on the group. I don't see that I'm going against any notability guidelines here since I'm not arguing about not including certain information, but rather that i should be presented in a more appropriate context.
Peter Isotalo 12:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that variation of your argument makes sense. Obviously the controversy is wholly centered on the issue of burning Qur'ans, not on the church and its anti-Islamic and otherwise controversial activities as such. Also, what you and a lot of others on this page completely fail to acknowledge is the fact that the article was created in part because this issue was beginning to swamp the article on the the church, a trend which by all sound estimates will become stronger as more and more people and institutions around the world are getting involved in the matter. I'm quite bemused that so many people here, including you, seem simply uanble to apprehend the logic of this. __meco (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At 33k, it seems odd to claim that an article about a small Christian church notable primarily for one particular incident can be "swamped" by information (22k so far) about that one particular event. But, really, why would you even bother discussing any of this in any detail if you've already decided that anyone who disagrees is stupid?
Peter Isotalo 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an article on Islamophobia that can put such actions into context; there is no need for a separate article on one event that hasn't even taken place yet. Nor should we be offering free publicity to individuals for events that are, in themselves non-notable (book-burnings happen every day, maybe not in the U.S. but they happen all the same) Physchim62 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you believe that the issue here is with naming the article, why do you assert that the article should be deleted? None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines would suggest that a naming dispute should be solved by deleting the subject. __meco (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all the the above sentence contains an 'or and second of all imho this is not regular naming dispute as in A might be more appropriate than B, but rather of the type B is currently completely unacceptable as article name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the event is well covered in the article on the church is that this article was created less than 12 hours ago based on the coverage in the church article since the volume had grown so much that a fork was warranted per standard practice. The cleanup of that operation, which would be to reduce the coverage of the event in the Dove World article to a brief summary otherwise referring to the new article, has simply not yet been undertaken. __meco (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting huge international media coverage too. But the fact there is so much coverage is why we must have a single article on it, there is not enough room on the Dove page to detail the response. The event has not even happened yet and there are already a huge number of peoples responses to mention, after it happens and the riots that will follow its going to need more space. If you know this is getting lots of media coverage, pls back Keep. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think I know what my vote was and on what grounds I based it. As for attention, the event is organized by a certain church, which is where in my opinion the information should be, and where a redirect would lead the interested reader to. Please fight the need to comment on every vote that is different from yours. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are we going to jump the gun and decide before mother time does? Whatever happens later, happens; notable people have already crystal'd themselves, and the world will see how these differing but very fundamental concepts play out. With much historic precedence for such events, lets hope it is not followed by the sound of breaking glass. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to go with the sources. I agree that this little Pastor should have been completely ignored and deserve no coverage at all, but that is not how our world works. The entire planet is getting its knickers in a twist over this, and for wikipedia to simply give it a couple of paragraphs in an article on a outreach center or pastor is not good enough. The sources (which are endless) suggest this is highly notable, and requires its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, especially if it gets added to the main page which is should be if this deletion request is closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will be rather disheartened if you go the main page discussion where this story has in fact been nominated. The myopic, head-in-the-sand perspective vociferously asserted by the nominator in this discussion appears to be ubiquitous on that page. I find it increasingly difficult to understand what a group of people with such challenged intellects and rational faculties possibly could contribute to Wikipedia, certainly the In The News area, or indeed how they happened to congregate there. __meco (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment these people are complete and utter morons and do not deserve any attention what so ever--- it's really a shame that a high school diploma or a certificate proving youre not inbred at the very least is not required to hammer your monkey paws on a computer keyboard and create undue attention for your stupid ideas.
Lol i think once the event happens there will be enough support for its inclusion, but some of the responses there are as tedious as this AFD. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meco, that is downright rude (and you deserve a trout slap for that personal insult), and BritishWatcher, you are not being helpful. Can we not have a civilized discussion in which people disagree in a civilized manner? You are inviting comments like that useless sentence inserted just above. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that would be correct as last tiem I checked, this church hasn't threatened violence to anyone or killed anybody. All they've done is threaten to burn a book which they intend to do so I don't think calling them millitant would be correct. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MErge no need for it to have its own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The President of the United States has also now commented in an interview on the issue. [2] Would those at present supporting merging be more prepared to support keeping if the article was renamed to describe it as a controversy. rather than just day. International Burn a Qur'an Day Controversy has been suggested on the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely this will be kept and not deleted so it will be in an article on wikipedia, the main debate I see here is will it have its own article or be part of another one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about article name and people voting to merge or delete

It seems a lot of people casting their opinions to either delete this page or merge it back to the Dove World article do so based on their opposition to the current article title. I would encourage those who have acted on this way to reconsider. Changing the article's name is a much less drastic measure than what you are giving your support to, in fact there is already a discussion at Talk:International Burn a Koran Day about renaming the article where two alternatives have been presented so far:

Personally I think the second one is a good candidate for a name change for the article. Please go to the article talk page to discuss this (i.e. don't do it as follow-up to this post), and please reconsider your vote given above if it fits with the description I gave above. __meco (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second choice here is far better than my own suggestion. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support name change to 2010 Florida Qur'an-burning Controversy, and recommend User:Meco be bold and enact it if no significant counter arguments before end of day today (Florida time). The newsworthiness at the moment (and I'll note "Quran Burning likely to trigger attacks" is the headline article on CNN.com as I type this) is about the controversy more than the planned event -Markeer 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you do speedy move, please leave the redirect, as an editor above has commented that there is a significant link from outside Wikipedia to the current article title. (If I'm wrong about the inbound link, of course this reasoning doesn't apply.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name is not "... Qur'an Day" but "... Koran Day". Although there is obviously a widespread opinion on the spelling of the book's title, the day's name clearly is spelt with "Koran".--FlammingoHey 18:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. WritersCramp (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a renaming to the 2nd option. This would remove the main problem of the current article. Almost all editors here so far agreed that the content itself due to the related media hype is notable, the issue mostly about which article is best suited for the content and that the current name is problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary so far

This is for the attention of any Admins following this discussion. I thought it would be a good idea to tally up the positions for those wishing the article not to be deleted against those who argue that it should be merged or renames.

With a controversial topic such as this we have to be on our guard against comments from IP address and relatively new accounts which may have been created soleöy for the purpose of influencing this discussion. I think we also should be on the lookout for persons seeking to use personal feelings over and above the really important issue of Wikipedia policy. I therefore thought it wise to check also on the users' editing histories. For each editor I have given the eariest WP contribution date and marked with a * any relatively new accounts or accounts which may otherwise arouse suspicion or which are IP accounts where the earliest edit data may npt be the same user and also may be a registered commentator seeking to air their view twice.

For merge or delete (and 1 rename)

  1. 2004/11 User:Grenavitar
  2. 2004/03 User:SarekOfVulcan
  3. 2005/05 User:Physchim62
  4. 2005/05 User:Hauskalainen
  5. 2005/05 User:Metropolitan90
  6. 2005/09 User:Herostratus
  7. 2005/10 User:Peter Isotalo
  8. 2005/10 User:Bduke
  9. 2005/11 User:VirginiaBoy
  10. 2005/11 User:AndrewRT
  11. 2006/08 User:Weaponbb7
  12. 2006/12 User:OneHappyHusky
  13. 2007/01 User:Wikidemon
  14. 2007/02 User:Kmhkmh
  15. 2007/08 User:Drmies
  16. 2007/11 User:Hans Adler
  17. 2008/09 User:Knowledgekid87
  18. 2008/10 User:Night w
  19. 2009/10 User:KeptSouth
  20. 2009/11 69.247.236.136 *
  21. 2010/05 User:Userpd


For Keep

  1. 2002/16 User:Netcrusher88
  2. 2004/02 User:Capitalistroadster
  3. 2005/10 User:Markeer
  4. 2005/11 User:Joe Decker
  5. 2006/02 User:meco
  6. 2007/05 User:Ks0stm
  7. 2007/09 User:CasualObserver'48
  8. 2008/02 User:Dreamspy
  9. 2008/04 User:The_C_of_E
  10. 2008/05 User:BritishWatcher
  11. 2008/09 User:User:Klassikkomies * Important Note 2
  12. 2008/08 User:HiLo48 ***
  13. 2008/12 User:Wikireader41
  14. 2009/01 User:GainLine
  15. 2009/02 User:Amore_Mio
  16. 2009/04 User:Meishern
  17. 2009/05 User:Iqinn
  18. 2010/08 User:Vulgarian Visigoth * Important Note 1
  19. 2010/09 User:Soupy sautoy *
  20. 2010/09 220.210.177.79* Important Note 3

*** I really should have taken notice of those among my friends who keep telling me that Americans just don't get irony. HiLo48 (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 The account has only has only just been created and this was the first and only WP edit

Note 2 This editor has an interesting edit history! He seems to have a penchant for editing articles on pornography and to articles with violent themes. Also to the articles such as the one on the convicted Finnish racist Seppo Lehto and the controversial Finnish anti- immigration figure Jussi Halla-aho

Note 3 The only edits relate to this matter

In summary, the count is fairly even balanced but there are potentially more "suspicious" editors in the "retain" count than in the "rename" or "delete" count. It also seems to me that the editors with the longest edit histories are mostly in favor of the article being renamed or merged. If your name is listed above and I have mis-categorized you or you wish to modify your stance, please feel free to edit the listing. Later persons adding comments may also wish to update the listing. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck is this? I consider this as a personal attack. My editing history is none of your business. Klassikkomies (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: 1) Please remain civil, 2) your editing history is everyone's business. LiteralKa (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral suggestion

I suggest the AFD is closed and the article moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Then when the date has passed and people have cooled down it can be moved back to mainspace when possibly a better informed AFD can start. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

I'm in the 'keep' camp but am fine with renaming, but made my comments on the article talk page. Soupy sautoy (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we built consensus on discussion and not voting. Truthsort (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I imply we were voting? Maybe the word "tally" and the count list makes you think that. The point is that someone has to make a decision about this and I thought it would be useful to see whether there were attempts by persons attempting to sway the discussion with either little or no edit history, or a history of controversial editing, to misrepresent the opinion of the Wikipedia community. I don't think consensus will ever be achieved. At some point someone with Admin authority is going to have step in and make a decision about this. I did the research on edit histories to help whoever that was to come to a decision about who was commenting here in which way and why that might be. Looking at edit histories and obtaining an understanding of longevity of editing picture might help to determine the serious editors from the transient ones attempting to use WP for nefarious purposes. The counting, the stars and the notes are just part of obtaining a balanced view of what is going on here --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now put the lists in edit history longevity sequence. The more experienced editors are clearly in favor of a rename. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point, if this burning does not take place this discussion will pretty much end there. - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That above tally hows there is no consensus to delete or merge the article. Also when taking into account the above point about the event taking place by the time this closes does mean we will be in a completely different situation then anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When there is no consensus, the article is kept or relisted. That is my point. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The president of the United States and many religious, political and even a military leader have all responded to this event already, making it notable. This major controversy needs its own article. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start debate afresh?

Now that the proposed Koran-burning has been called off in the deal with the "Ground Zero Mosque" imam, should we restart the debate as the situation has now changed significantly?--A bit iffy (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AfD should be closed now with no consensus - 24.91.121.72 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is news like this Why we have WP:CRYSTAL Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to keep pushing that, aren't you? It's a *very* notable event that has sparked international media coverage. It is notable. LiteralKa (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the episode, however it might have turned out, was clearly something that required its own article.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for Admin to come here clean up this mess as no involved editor should really do anything here at this pointWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename. Because the title now is not credible, the event is cancelled and the title leads to misguide as represents it as if it's happened. Userpd (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by that logic) the name should have been changed a while ago, because it was planned it never happened, and it may still happen. LiteralKa (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...all of which can be explained in the lead of the article without distorting the original name of the (notable) planned event. 220.210.176.165 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, we can't go changing the name because it's not entirely true. That is what the media is calling it, and that is what we should call it. LiteralKa (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edits like this disturb me, as they clearly show bias. LiteralKa (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has been a big distraction

Sadly this AFD has been a huge distraction and taken up a lot of peoples time, the article needs updating with new sources and information. Those who support the article should consider assisting thanks. There is clearly no consensus to delete, there for the article will be kept or relisted. If the article is in a good condition and upto date it will help the keep case next time round. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2010 (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.
More