Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cash for fatwas scandal
- 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 as proposed by Edgarde. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cash for fatwas scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete: Extremely non-notable and unencyclopedic event. Time published a news piece saying some Indian TV channel in a sting operation showed some Muslim clerics receiving cash for issue of fatwa. They even do not mention the name of the TV channel, which TV channel showed it. No hint in google news search [1]. A google search shows 30 ghits [2], but there are no other reliable source with significant coverage on the particular topic outside the Time piece and a Times of India news piece. Everyday there are news of corruption appears in newspapers, but not all are notable, certainly not for having an exclusive separate article in encyclopedia. The article in its present form is serving a WP:SOAP for anti-Islam POV-pushers. Hence I am nominating this non-notable unencyclopedic news event for deletion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The reason that Google News didn't have anything on this is that it is old news--the events occurred in September 2006. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. -- Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Islamic Fiqh Academy and Fatawa#Some_contemporary_fatawa. This is sourced and somewhat interesting, and the initiative to monitor fatwas in response to this scandal (not to mention the public reaction reported in these articles) suggest this is a notable event. However, as a freestanding article, especially with this title, this is a silly POV push. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fatawa#Some_contemporary_fatawa. It's both notable and verifiable, but not enough for an article unless there are more developments. A couple sentences in another article should be sufficient. Doc Tropics 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge unless more reliable sources found. gren グレン 06:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the Fatwa article above, topic doesn't appear significant enough for its own article. ITAQALLAH 09:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Yahel Guhan 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as not enough third party sources have been found.Bless sins (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete for the reasons listed by all users above. I could go either way on this one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (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.