Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam and children

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Islam and children}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islam_and_children Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Islam and children}})

This article is vague, poorly cited (with a lot out of primary sources), of very limited practical use and subject to repeated vandal attacks, judging by the history. There are no other articles about other religions' attitudes to children, there are main articles related to a couple of the sub-sections, and the whole thing looks pretty pointless to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I don’t really see a valid reason for nomination here. “Vague” is not a reason for deletion. “very limited practical use” is not a reason for deletion. “Subject to repeated vandal attacks” is most definitely not a reason for deletion. “There are main articles related to a couple of subsections”? Great! A topic related to other topics, about which more can be said.

As to things that might be reasons for deletion: ‘a lot of primary sources.’ The only primary source is the Qur’an, and since plainly the origin of Islamic thinking on children us going to be derived from that source, it makes sense to cite it in relevant places, just as there are direct scriptural quotes in Incest in the Bible. I agree that the article could be improved by reducing them and making greater use of secondary sourcing, but it does not rely entirely or predominantly on primary sources. In some cases the creating editor may have mistakenly favoured a primary citation over a secondary ref. For example, ref 7 is pretty clearly covered by ref 12, while ref 13 to a text in the qur’an is also clearly from a secondary source. These are just mistakes of editorial inexperience. Finally ‘poorly cited’. Aside from the qur’an there are thirty refs to secondary sources, illustrating the notability of the topic and the range of scholarly writing on this topic. Definitely one for improvement, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - this article has a purpose in describing Islamic teaching on children. The nominator says "There are no articles about other religions' attitudes to children", but one could apply a reverse policy to the policy of "Wikipedia: Other Stuff Exists" here. There is a category "Religion and children". There may not be articles on, say, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Hinduism and children, but that just means we could start some. Vorbee (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• keep Yes, there are other articles – see religion and children, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep (this is obviously a legitimate subject), but please remove all claims referenced directly to Quran. This a primary source that should not be used here. Secondary sources please. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very notable topic that shouldn't be deleted. KingSkyLord (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a perfectly valid Family law article. I don't understand the reasons for the nomination. Removal of primary sources can be done with ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. Palestinian law was similarly subject to edit-warring, and the subject of sanctions, but that's not a reason to delete; neither is this article so poorly written as to be blown up. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.