- 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 15:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Kidnapping in Islamism
- Kidnapping in Islamism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Before this page gets added to any further, do we need it at all? Should we leave it as is, move it to Kidnapping in terrorism which is currently a redirect, merge to Kidnapping or delete. Right now, I am leaning to delete. I think the subject can be fully covered in Kidnapping. Since there is really nothing to merge yet, just a straight deletion would work. Safiel ( talk) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Poorly sourced and seems like slapped together POV effort that's better covered in articles like those mentioned above. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep The user has not yet finished the page and the article creator has put the process of an expansion or major restructuring tag and feel it is wrong to nominate it for deletion at this point.You can ask him to usefy personally only after one has finished a page should one nominate it for deletion.Here it was nominated within 7 minutes of creation .Please note it purely procedural. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - The article's subject is certainly notable, and per Pharaoh, give it a little time to see whether or not it shapes up as something worthy of an independent article or if it would be better covered elsewhere. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snow Keep and Improve the noteworthiness of this start of an article (I started it) is revealed in the sources ( Al Qaeda says it is significant. So do Foreign Policy and the New York Times). It needs A Lot of work. Tragically, there is a great deal of material in the many articles about kidnap victims that can be added to improve this too-brief article on kidnapping as an Islamist strategy for fundraising, diplomatic bargaining chips, and intimidation of civilian populations. Editor who posted delete saw the article a few minutes after I started it. I have requested him to withdraw his request for deletion out of courtesy. ShulMaven ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Nominating an article 8 minutes after creation is pretty much bad-faith, I'll Assume good faith and not close this discussion which actually was my plan anyway!. – Davey2010 • (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 15:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Kidnapping in Islamism
- Kidnapping in Islamism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Before this page gets added to any further, do we need it at all? Should we leave it as is, move it to Kidnapping in terrorism which is currently a redirect, merge to Kidnapping or delete. Right now, I am leaning to delete. I think the subject can be fully covered in Kidnapping. Since there is really nothing to merge yet, just a straight deletion would work. Safiel ( talk) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: Poorly sourced and seems like slapped together POV effort that's better covered in articles like those mentioned above. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep The user has not yet finished the page and the article creator has put the process of an expansion or major restructuring tag and feel it is wrong to nominate it for deletion at this point.You can ask him to usefy personally only after one has finished a page should one nominate it for deletion.Here it was nominated within 7 minutes of creation .Please note it purely procedural. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Procedural keep - The article's subject is certainly notable, and per Pharaoh, give it a little time to see whether or not it shapes up as something worthy of an independent article or if it would be better covered elsewhere. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Snow Keep and Improve the noteworthiness of this start of an article (I started it) is revealed in the sources ( Al Qaeda says it is significant. So do Foreign Policy and the New York Times). It needs A Lot of work. Tragically, there is a great deal of material in the many articles about kidnap victims that can be added to improve this too-brief article on kidnapping as an Islamist strategy for fundraising, diplomatic bargaining chips, and intimidation of civilian populations. Editor who posted delete saw the article a few minutes after I started it. I have requested him to withdraw his request for deletion out of courtesy. ShulMaven ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Nominating an article 8 minutes after creation is pretty much bad-faith, I'll Assume good faith and not close this discussion which actually was my plan anyway!. – Davey2010 • (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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.