Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU: Architecture and Functions
- 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. Mkativerata (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU: Architecture and Functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is Wikipedia:Original research. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable idea, original research which reads like an essay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow, NPOV issues. Essay that is not likely notable as a singular subject matter and is being used as a soapbox to discredit the organization. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Original research (by an ideological crank with an ax to grind). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an academic product based on specific research cited from the sources listed with no personal opinions presented or intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk • contribs) 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Dagnytaggartmoxie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "academic product based on research" = original research and synthesis" - you've just made our case for us. This would, in my opinion, never pass muster in any serious peer-reviewed journal. If it did so, then it could be used for an actual serious article without an obvious ideological agenda. --Ora
nge Mike | Talk 21:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original essay. Square peg mashed into round hole and declared a perfect fit. My biggest beef: "Front groups" is a polemic, pejorative term popularized in the USA during the McCarthy era about the Communist Party USA's auxiliary "mass organizations," some but not all of which had a disguised connection with the party organization. This anachronistic terminology and the concept back of it is applied to CPSU axiomatically. Well, at a bare minimum, that's debatable. In fact, I've got maybe 2,500 or 3,000 books on various aspects of Russian and Soviet history and it would be a real challenge to find any serious scholar using the term "front groups" in connection with CPSU; and certainly nothing whatsoever that written by mainstream historians after the 1950s, if any did, in fact, ever use the term even then. And this is one half of the facile comparison being made in this essay! There may or may not be material here that can be merged into Muslim Brotherhood, but this piece is a verrrrrrrrrrrry big stretch and an original essay without necessary parallels in the published literature.. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
DO NOT DELETE- This article provides an interesting and well-supported viewpoint that illustrates the Muslim Brotherhood as a political organization as well as a religious/ideological one. This parallel between the CPSU and the Muslim Brotherhood sheds light on the doctrine and tactics the group employs. The points made here are not terribly different than the ones put forth in the “criticisms” section. Political correctness should not be the main requirement for inclusion in this wiki. It appears that the detractors of this article are suppressing an opposing viewpoint from behind the wall of academic objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapper1302 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — sapper1302 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I don't think anyone on the planet would debate that "the Muslim Brotherhood as a political organization as well as a religious/ideological one." The first line in the lead of the Wikipedia article Muslim Brotherhood calls it "the world's oldest and one of the largest Islamist parties, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states." That's not exactly mincing words is it? The question is whether this extremely debatable personal essay — equating the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood with the structure of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (!!!) should be allowed to stand. That's like an essay on bananas being just like bean bag chairs because they're both yellow. There is absolutely no serious trend in the scholarly literature making this comparison, no significant minority view being repressed in the name of political correctness. This is an original idea pulled from the sky and made into an essay. Wikipedia is not the place to publish this sort of original research. Is there material here which might be brought to the Muslim Brotherhood article to improve it? Maybe, maybe not — I have no opinion. I do have an opinion on whether this article should stand, however, which I have made amply clear, I presume. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as [[WP:OR]. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (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.