Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitna

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The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I moved various partial matches to See also, which leaves two legitimate entries. One is the obvious primary topic, so that should be moved here, and a hatnote added for the short. Note that all but two of the entries I demoted are discussed in the main article, and one of the exceptions is listed in that article's See also. (For some reason, the Fifth Fitna isn't mentioned there, but could be.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There was no consensus on primary topic at Talk:Fitna (word)#Requested move; a new move request would be necessary. Peter James (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the entries that were recently moved to the "see also" are partial title matches: as far as I can see, each of those individual fitnas can be referred to, in the right context, as the Fitna, so they would need to be included in the dab's main body. Also, there's no primary topic with respect to usage: the clickstream data for March shows that the article about the word did not receive a majority of clicks from the dab page: it got 115, with the First Fitna getting 109, the Fifth Fitna - 43, the film – 42, the Fitna of Andalus – 39, and the 3rd, 2nd and 4th fitnas – 32, 26, and 21 respectively. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ambiguous term, several possibilities. Boleyn (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination (though I disagree about the five six fitnas being promoted). There's a third entry now. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2021 (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.