Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim supremacy

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim supremacy

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

No assertion of notability by reliable sources. Also WP:FRINGE. Only sources given are an opinion piece from WSJ (note that Best of the Web is under their Opinion category) ([1]) and a source from Frontpage Magazine ([2]) which is generally considered a non-reliable source per discussions on WP:RSN. Please see discussions on RSN at 1, 2, 3. In the spirit of WP:BEFORE, I have looked for other sources. The only other sources I can find are blogs like wordpress, citizenwarrior, jihadwatch, tundratabloids, and clashdaily. I found one self-published book ([3]). The topic of this article appears to be part of fringe right-wing rhetoric and not covered by any secondary reliable sources. I propose deletion per WP:DEL6. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I had some difficulty with Twinkle. This article has only been nominated once. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to the original title accordingly. For a purely technical issue like this, we don't actually need to keep the blank error page or leave the actual discussion at the "(2nd nomination)" title. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept, a single source and no demonstration of notability.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever is worth covering here is already covered better elsewhere, and whatever's left over is just badly sourced WP:FRINGE. The religion is not a race in any meaningful sense. Even the Frontpage mag source, (not usable) doesn't support the use of 'racism', and is just broadly ranting against the "Conditions of Omar", (presumably the Pact of Umar) which seems to be the author's pet bugaboo. That article fails to establish "Muslim supremacy" as being a legitimate term or cohesive concept. Is this ignorantly conflating Arab with Islam? If so, we already have racism in the Arab world. Is this about Islam and other religions? How about Islamism? Is this an attempted neologism created by detractors, like Islamofascism? Both seem to have some connection to David Horowitz, but this one doesn't seem to have been consistently used or commented on. There are no usable sources here and there is no obvious central topic. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Seduisant (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and not likely to develop beyond a WP:DICDEF. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The concept being described, in short: something of a theocratic absolutism whereby a clique of fanatical, ideological elites rule over the populace with an iron fist, is a very real one, of course, and we've long had an article about it: Islamism. This page here is completely superfluous and unnecessary. There's nothing that could possibly work as a truly reliable citation for this page that wouldn't have a much better fit over at Islamism. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge with Islamism? --Article editor (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still lacks any reliable sources. Does not belong in any article without RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 2 February 2016 (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.