Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic unity

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 delete. Sandstein 11:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic unity

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

Seems to be OR or at least original synthesis.

Undeleted after PROD+PROD2 without notification of the taggers (Anders Feder and yours truly). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page was created by the sockpuppet of a serial copyright violator. Earlier versions definitely contain copyright violations; the current version may still contain them. Haven't gotten around to checking yet. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Srahmadi for details. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has weighed in, I recommend to delete as presumptive copyvio, and because of the OR/SYNTH issues. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely WP:SYNTH in its current state; half of it is a cherry-picked WP:QUOTEFARM. Article was created by a sock, whose sock "brother" additionally messed up the interwiki linkage between articles about Shia–Sunni relations and Islamic unity. I've restored that, so at least now I'm not feeling guilty for deleting something that wrongly had so many other-language versions. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't anything more to add here that hasn't been said. This is one of the clearest examples of good-intentioned, well meaning OR and synthesis I've seen in a while. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a glaring synthesis, providing meaningless examples for something that should be discussed at Ummah, perhaps. Also, per Psychonaut. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2015 (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.