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. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the islamic golden age

[edit]

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

A highly non-encyclopedic article that takes its material solely from Islamic Watch, a web site that does not meet WP:RS requirements. Concerns regarding WP:COATRACK and WP:CFORK also need to be considered. Absent of information culled from reliable sources, there is nothing to merge or redirect. Warrah (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK, and WP:SYNTH. According to the author, he created this page because "Islamists" kept removing it from Islamic Golden Age, i.e., there was no consensus to include it. Anybody willing to try merging this info back in is welcome to try, otherwise delete. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought that there might be some saving of this perhaps renamed as criticism of or merging but no, I have read the article, and in my understanding it is in no way even resembling any part of a wikipedia article.--Kiyarrlls-talk 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice, burn till left as a smoldering cinder, stomp on the ashes. Totally WP:OR, any relevent criticisms can be included in the main article. This does not seem like a good idea in any way. --Jayron32 04:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a coatrack, and not a contentfork ~~(which is ok)~~<was thinking of summary/spin-offs>, but a POVfork (which is not). Anyway, I had suggested the merger (and cleanup of the quotefarm). Reading it more carefully, I'd say merge about one sentence about the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof) and redirect it to Islamic Golden Age. (Otherwise, if the consensus is not to do that much, and just delete it, my feelings won't be hurt.) LadyofShalott 05:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have said POV Fork. And I'm serious that if anyone wants to merge it back in they should do so; I just don't think the creation of this article is the right response to the apparent consensus against the inclusion of the information in the main article. --Glenfarclas (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely based on unreliable sources. The one book in here is self-published. The rest of this is sourced to islam-watch.org, a site that cannot be described as "reliable" by any reasonably person. Any actual reliable sources that exist about this should go in the Islamic Golden Age article. nableezy - 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inherently POV. Critical engagement with the concept has a legitimate place in the Golden Age of Islam article (and edit warring about it on that article would be a matter for discussion there), but does not warrant a separate article (and most of the content here doesn't constitute critical engagement). Gonzonoir (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and SYN, and not very accurate SYN at that, written because nobody would accept this nonsense in the main article. The IGA refers to the economic and cultural growth of Islamic Near East , Africa, and Europe, not the fall of the Roman Empire in the West & its decline in the East, or to the development or lack of development in the Christian part of Western Europe. The O'Neill book used as the principal source is self-published, and essentially unknown, being held in only one US library (btw, the author is not the Pulitzer prize winning science journalist, who won his prize in 1937 and died in 1953). Nothing mergeable from this article, and no need to redirect. Bat Yeor's controversial views are discussed in the article on her. If they are thought relevant to the main topic, rather than just Fringe, they should be added properly. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just adding my vote for what it's worth. I agree completely with all of the delete votes above and their justifications. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Delete. Per the above. This is an embarassment. CAn someone please come along and put it out of its misery?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was going to suggest merging what content could be preserved but the sources are bad. While the website linked in the footnotes is not an RS, I noticed at first that those pages are actually based on a published book. But it turns out the book is self-published through a self-publishing company, and when I searched Google Scholar I found no evidence that this person has ever published anything peer-reviewed on this topic, so I don't see any indication that his opinion is worth reporting in this article. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent as written, coat-rack and original research that appears to claim that their weren't learned scholars in the Islamic world and powerful societies in this period with far-reaching impacts. Well, there were.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Put this article out of its misery. This is essentially copied and pasted from Conservapedia. Let them post their speculation over there. They have six sources against the Golden Age. We have hundreds of sources actually about the Golden Age.- Just Phil 00:03, 21 December 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.