Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 9

Addas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allowing this close to stand will set a dangerous precedent; that regardless of how outrageous the claims a source makes, editors at AfD can claim that it is reliable and that claim will be accepted without question by the closer. BilledMammal (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So BilledMammal let me get this straight... an article on a religious topic, from one of the world's largest religions, citing religious writings referencing the beliefs about what transpired over a thousand years ago, somehow violates WP:FRINGE? Moreover, it violates FRINGE not because the article itself asserts miracles as factual, but because some of the religious sources which are used (added during the AfD, or before?) accept the historicity of miracles? Your argument is that all !votes that accepted religious sources as RS on religious figures are invalid because those sources also endorse past miracles as historical? Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The argument, per WP:FRINGE, is that sources that claim religious miracles actually occurred are unreliable. The issue with the close is that the closer gave undue weight to the opposite assertion, that sources that claim religious miracles actually occurred are reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's be perfectly clear here:

  1) Fringe doesn't address religious claims of religious events, certainly not by mainstream religions as part of their religious traditions. Supernatural events claimed to be supernatural aren't, by definition, scientifically provable and hence don't fall under FRINGE in the first place.

  2) WP:FRINGE, even if it applied, is applied incorrectly in your argument. The topic is an Islamic topic, so the question is "Are the miracles in question FRINGE within Islam?" and while I'm not an Islamic scholar, I think it's fair to say that no, they are not FRINGE within Islam. Western science and skepticism doesn't get a privileged seat at the table allowing it to sit in judgment on others' religious traditions.

  3) Sources that hold WP:FRINGE beliefs are not themselves unacceptable. As WP:BIASED was quoted to you in the AfD discussion, However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. No one has asserted that any of the material supporting the article in question is directly arguing for a miraculous interpretation of the person in question or his life. Rather, you've asserted that just because a religious work takes a traditional story of a miracle at face value, it cannot be reliable for anything it contains.

  I'm sure you legitimately believe your perspective on religious sources is justified by Wikipedia policies, but it's really not. In fact, it looks rather Islamophobic and an attempt to impose Western rationalistic and skeptical norms on non-Western topics. That may not have been your intent, but it's certainly how it looks to me. So... Endorse with prejudice that the argument has sufficiently little merit that it should be rejected now, rejected in the future, and future attempts to make similar arguments (using FRINGE against major religions) be treated as disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please strike your WP:AGF and WP:PA violation; the same criteria applies to all topics, including other religions like Christianity.

  While the violation stands I am not willing to engage with you on this. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, reasonable reading of consensus by the closer. The listing here appears to be based on a disagreement with the closure, which isn't an eligible reason to come to DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would prefer it if the article more clearly gave in-text attribution to its sources. Also, if there are reliable sources claiming the legendary nature of the subject they should be included, if due. However, these are not reasons for deleting the article or for dismissing arguments favouring retaining the article. The AFD discussion and DRV nomination seem to me to be too polemical. Thincat (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus by !vote count would probably be keep. The closer clearly factored in the arguments for deletion. Srnec (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with a trout to the appellant, who appears to be claiming strength of arguments when what they are actually providing is length of arguments. No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer, and the best conclusion by the closer. The nominator/appellant has the length of arguments, but that isn't the same as strength. The nominator's reasoning that the source are fringe has already been refuted in the AFD.
  • I am in general disinclined to overturn a No Consensus. To overturn No Consensus requires a finding that the closer disregarded an established consensus. This is not a case where No Consensus should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Only counting the bolded votes, the discussion seems to be split between keep and merge/redirect/delete. Therefore, a no consensus outcome would IMO be reasonable unless the opposing keep votes (including merge/redirect/delete) are substantially stronger than the keep side as per WP:NOTAVOTE. However, I do not think that is the case here, keep voters reasonably disagreed with the opposing keep voters primarily on WP:FRINGE issues and reliability of specific sources, with the strength of the argument IMHO being similar. Therefore, I could not see a consensus that would push this to another outcome, such as delete (which is what the DRV nom suggested at User talk:Seraphimblade). VickKiang (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]