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. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic socialism[edit]

Islamic socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It has been over two years and this article still does not contain one reliable source or any useful content. It is still 100% Origional research and it is pretty clear that is not going to change. Sefringle 05:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for this topic, and the article has never been tagged with ((unreferenced)) as far as I can tell. (Also, please don't use "original research" to mean "unreferenced". They are not the same thing at all.) Just for a start:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article appears to have some merit. It could also benefit from improvements. I have noted that the editors of this article have not received notice of the AfD. User:Jayden54Bot provides notice for article 4 weeks old or less. Of course, if anything articles of greater duration, with multiple editors deserve greater process. I will manually provide notice to all editors of this article with the following neutral notice: "You have edited the article Islamic socialism. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you." Edivorce 01:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - original research should not be confused with unverified information. This article is unverified, but not unverifiable. Accordingly, keep and cleanup. -- Black Falcon 01:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur with the sentiments expressed above. —Sesel 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article subject is worthy of an article, and it just needs work; it has potential. To delete it would mean a new article would likely be created later, which will put us further behind where we are now. Carl.bunderson 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is worthy. In all the sound and fury of "Islamism" and Right Wing being dominant on all sides of the civilizational conversational right now, there isn't much discussion of this concept. But in the '70s, it was the (stated) policy of some major hitters.--iFaqeer 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I became aware of the issue (as regards this AfD) on account of this: [8]. However, otherwise also the topic interests me. It is certainly not an original research though it may be unreferenced right now. For such pages, deletion is not the correct choice (in my opinion). The correct thing is to try to provide more references and references by way of further reading shall be still better. --Bhadani 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I concur as above, and would particularly agree with Carl.bunderson's comment. This is an important subject, and an ideology which has been promoted by several highly notable figures, as the article indicates. There are actually a couple of decent external references on there, though it does need more accurate referencing for its quotes. The fact that it's a scrappy article means that we should improve it, not delete it. -- TinaSparkle 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article being put up for deletion is fasinating and informative. I never knew anything about Islamic socialism before, but it does need more references in the near future. - Qasamaan 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. This article is in terrible shape, and I am not sure if such a topic is notbale engouh to have its own article. But I would like to give this a chance. If I don't see things change, however, I may myself put this article on an AfD later on.Bless sins 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally have reliable sources for that. Hopefully will add them whenever I get free. --Aminz 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be largely ignored now, but was a basis for many of the earlier movements within Islam. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed that "Islamic Fascism" does not have an article of its own. Shariah law is actually fascist, and by this merit alone, it's quite shocking that we have a topic "Islamic Socialism" but "Islamic Fascism" does not have its own page. However, since "fascism" has a bad reputation, it must be less painful for some to to downplay the truth and talk about ridiculous topics such as "Islamic Socialism" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtectWomen (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Your comment is irrelevant. This article is about Islamic socialism, not "Islamofascism". —Sesel 19:24, 16 February 2007 (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.