Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex-Muslim Studies

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. WP:CRYSTAL applies in part due to possibly "emerging" status. Primary author has vested interest, WP:OR. Full searches cannot provide any such programs of study. This may *someday* be a viable topic, but without multiple valid 3rd party reliable sources as per the discussion, this is probably years off. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Muslim Studies

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

No such field of study at any academic institution I could find; online references are to this very article. Possibly a hoax. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: This is an emerging and new field, as the entry points out. I am cited in this article and I feel comfortable identifying myself as a very real scholar, teaching at a real college, engaging and publishing about ex-Muslim studies. Fields of study like gay studies, sub-altern studies, an post-colonial studies were unheard of recently, now they are well established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphilosopherking (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What classes? What college? Where? Who defined the scope of the field and when? What papers have been published and peer-reviewed? What academic journals did they appear in? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is "the study" of Ex-Muslim Studies itself, not a discussion of the subject of Ex-Muslim Studies: a sure sign of original synthesis, though not quite original research. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 'original synthesis'--I disagree. Original synthesis entails that one is advancing a position according to the Wikipedia page you referenced. The page is not advancing any position at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xphilosopherking (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear—I gave one reason to delete, not two. That is: an article describing "Ex-Muslim Studies" should be an article describing the subject, similar to the example you gave, gay studies, where the article is about the subject of gay studies. The article you wrote is full of apparently well-written and well-sourced material which is what "Ex-Muslim studies" presumably analyzes and studies, but does not have any sources about the subject considered as a whole. Thus, the references do not support the existence of the general subject, only if taken as an original synthesis. For this I voted delete—but all the material in the article could conceivably be placed in the respective pre-existing articles. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Non-notable topic, and the creator more or less admits above that he's trying to use Wikipedia to create the topic. (WP:NOR) However, the sources may be useful in other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Weak Keep "Ex-Muslim studies" may exist, but only as a fringe study. The article has lots of examples, with sources for these examples, but no general sources for the "studies" themselves. Any universities say? There's a lot of content here I'd hate to see deleted, but I wouldn't know where to merge it to. If sources are provided that shows this in fact exists as a formal field of study Anywhere - we should keep and improve the page. Otherwise... another option. Outback the koala (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did find this in a quick search [1] might be real. But if so, clearly very sparce and rarely known field. Outback the koala (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of coverage of this as a field (as opposed to the synthesis and OR there now) means this article fails WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy This article needs a re-focusing. If it's about "Ex-Muslim Studies" as an academic discipline, it needs to be strictly about that (where it is taught, leaders in the field of study, etc.). Right now it's an overview of apostasy and Islam, with original synthesis problems. The term "Ex-Muslim" itself has a shade of POV, and only shows up in certain literatures. The Interior (Talk) 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Please allow me to make a number of comments for the sake of clarity so an informed decision can be made regarding what to do with this entry. I have edited the opening sentence to clarify that ex-Muslim studies is a subset or sub-discipline of religious conversion studies, and that is indeed a well-established and well-known field of study reaching back to William James, at least, in the social sciences. There are a number of reasons why you will not find a specific 'department of ex-Muslim studies' at your local university: 1) it is a new field of study (substantial numbers of converts date back to the 60's only), 2) financially, universities and colleges are closing and merging programs today, and only rarely opening new ones, and 3) it is politically sensitive, and secular institutions are very sensitive about offending Muslims, and this is a topic that, no matter how objectively you approach it, tends to offend Muslims. 4) It is, after all interdisciplinary, and the people engaged in this research are teaching history, anthropology, sociology of religion, theology, missiology, and so on. I don't know if this makes a difference, but I know of several people engaged in doctoral studies right now studying ex-Muslim groups, but it will still be a year or two until their material is published. Again, it is an emerging field. That having been said, there are a number of figures and studies that are very influential to people studying ex-Muslims, and a list of those would not be hard to compose. What is needed? A published journal article introducing the discipline? I can ask around and see if anyone has something like that, or if anyone is working on one. As to institutions where ex-Muslim studies are being carried out, I can point to the institutions where the doctoral research is being carried out by individual scholars, both in the UK and the USA. Would that be helpful? All of this to say, if the page needs to go, let it be. Or perhaps parts of it can helpfully be merged into other pages, like on religious conversion or what have you. But the field is broader than just religious conversion. It is just that to date that is the question (why people leave Islam) that has been most studied, and only right now is ongoing research being carried out regarding the consequences of that apostasy and the activities of those people. Excuse the long post, but there were quite a few points to respond to. Xphilosopherking (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for making the effort to respond to others' concerns. I'm afraid, however, that the comment is bolstering the arguments against this article's existence, as you seem fundamentally to be saying "it's a new thing and we need to be the ones to document its existence." But that is not how Wikipedia notability works. The topic itself must be documented by reliable sources - so it wouldn't be enough to produce a couple of dissertations on conversion out of Islam, even if the dissertations identified "ex-Muslim studies" as a field, because it is necessary to find sources that talk about the field of ex-Muslim studies (eg. how did it originate, who are some prominent scholars working in it, some universities that are leading the field). Does this make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Roscelese: so what is need here is an article or website that proves that this is a field of study? Is that correct? I'm sure I can find that if it is what Wikipedia requires. I suppose a question is, if this is deleted, then at what point could such an entry be written? Thank you for your helpful remarks. Xphilosopherking (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy: As it is written, this article is a good essay, and does document some useful social science insights. Not encyclopedic, however. I agree that some of this could be integrated into other articles or just rewritten in an entirely different tone with references if factual. Fylbecatulous talk 13:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~ Significant original research but not an established independent topic. Most of the material is the editor's own writings. Some is unreferenced. Some references are not noteworthy. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Recent changes (such as those in Clarification below) encourages me to tilt towards keep. The weak persists because of the unknown quality of the literature. I'd like to understand the nature of the publications better but lean towards keep at this point.Jason from nyc (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I have noted that some people have suggested that this page was composed to promote my own scholarship, rather than to document a genuine, existing field of study. I have deleted most references to my own work, and welcome anyone to read the other references and delete them as well if they are not justified. Also, I have shared the website with some people involved in the study of ex-Muslims, and perhaps they will chime in in the coming weeks. Is there a deadline for this discussion? I am new to this sort of discussion, my apologies. Xphilosopherking (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no real deadlines for this on the books; as long as long as the discussion is still ongoing, it usually won't be closed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 3 December 2012 (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.