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 merge into Islamism. Evil saltine (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islamism in London[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a POV article, implicating the presence of muslims in London with the growth of Islamic terrorism. It may be a fork of Londonistan and 21 July 2005 London bombings. It's not particularly about Islamism in London either.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be an article on Islam in London & Londonistan (term) do we need another article on more or less the saem subject?Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to *Redirect I agree this seems a better idea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Islam in London. As Slatersteven says above, this is effectively redundant to that article and Londonistan (term) - it has no information that is not already in those articles. Robofish (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism
Keep The article does need expansion, (lots of articles do) but it is reliably sourced and significant. It has also been up for over two years and edited by many editors none of whom appear to have thought it problematic.Historicist (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londonistan should be focused on discussions that actually use that (highly political) term. Islamism in London has the potential to be a wider article encompassing many aspects of Islamization in metropolitan London.Historicist (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Islamism is a specific political doctrine; Islamisation is the process of conversion of a population to Islam. That's not happening in London, except in some feverish imaginations ;-).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not merge it with Islam in London?Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Islam is a religion and Islamism is a political ideology. It is not fair to London's non-Islamist Muslims Islam to crowd the Islam in London page with Islamism.Historicist (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A political ideology that grew out of Islam, preached in London mosques. It is part of Londons Muslim community, not some seperate entity that has no contact or connection with it.Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howevfer lets discuse the idea of merging this with the Islamism page itself as this has less to do with London then it does with a wider global movment.Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually better than Islam in London because Islam in London doesn't cite any sources at all. I agree that we need one article on this subject and not two, and I think that "Islamism in London" is a plausible search term for "Islam in London".
I think that "Islamism in London" is going to be a redirect, not a redlink, so "delete" isn't going to be the outcome here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose to any merge which results in "Islamism in London" as the primary title. I have no objection to "Islamism in London" as a small subtopic within "Islam in London", but a merge with "Islamism" as the primary title is as inappropriate – and as offensive – as redirecting Christianity in the United States to Westboro Baptist Church, or Politics of the United Kingdom to British National Party. – iride scent 10:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was that Islamism in London would be a seperate catergary of Islamism, much in the same way as Islamism in Turkey is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to keep things clear, then, on the table are either merge (or redirect) into Islamism, as the page could have relevance as part of the wider phenomenon of Islamism, or into Islam in London. I would prefer a merge to Islamism; it's a sensitive topic and I would be concerned about WP:UNDUE and WP:POV if it were moved into Islam in London.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure whether this was intended to be a POV fork, but a) it would be far too easy to turn this into one, and b) it doesn't really say anything that isn't already elsewhere on WP. No objection to including substantiated incidents of Islamic extremism in another article (where there should be enough people watching to police it), but I agree that a redirect is probably not a good idea. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If kept, rename to Radical Islam in London or Jihadism in London. "Islamism" is not a term I have ever heard, and anyway the concept appears to be regarded by most Muslims as not part of true Islam (not that I know - being a Christian). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Islamism is a very distinct ideology. It should not be 'merged' with Islam in London - it must be kept as its own page. Binglelantern (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UT

What about the sugestion of merginig it with the the Islamisam page?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2009 (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.