Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism and Islam

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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism and Islam

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Anything relevant from this article should be integrated in capitalism and history of capitalism, found it weird history of capitalism to have no mention of topic at all and it should, it is much more visible page and not as peculiar, little people will search for this page. Plus it warrants no page of it's own because it only part of larger topic Sourcerery (talk)

Keep. If I correctly understand the not very clearly expressed reason given for deletion, it is that few people (not small people) will see this article, and therefore mention of the subject should be made on the other pages mentioned. That can be done, but doing so does not in any way require this article to be deleted. This is a rather specific niche topic, which does not merit extensive coverage in those more general articles, but a brief mention there linking to this article for further detail makes more sense than wholesale deletion. Also, the fact that few people are likely to see the article is not a reason for deletion: it does no harm to keep it for the benefit of those few who do see it. (Nevertheless, since the issue of the number of people seeing the articles has been raised, I have checked, and in the last 30 days there have been just over 1,000 views of Capitalism and Islam, compared with a little over 22,000 for History of capitalism. For such a very much more specific and limited subtopic, that does not seem to me to be an unreasonably small a number of views.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since writing the post above, I have discovered that the notion that we should delete an article because few people will read it is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, under the heading Pageview stats. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point I was making is WP:N thought that was clear by suggestion to have it all in capitalism and history of capitalism Sourcerery (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I see no objective reason this article should be deleted. Subjective reasons for deletion are a bad idea to use. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep لا يوجد سبب موضوعي للحذف. ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English translation: Is not objective reason to delete. ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GAB^gab 20:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP please. I see it is notable for me! And it has very important information,and facst.20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk)

I'm not sure I see a valid deletion rationale here. GMG ^talk 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on WP:SKCRIT #1 grounds - no valid reason for deletion has been proposed. If that doesn't work, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG through the scholarly articles cited. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given for deletion (in all honesty I should close this as a speedy keep). Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:35, 3 April 2019 (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.