Samwalton9

QD tag on Muhammad the Apostle in the Bible

The article in question will in all probability not be QD'd based on vandalism. I'm not an administrator so it isn't my decision. But, so far, this IP user has not committed any vandalism I can see. There are probably several reasons for QD you might have used, vandalism is one that doesn't fit in this situation. I marked it RfD and you may want to participate and comment there. What is done on the English Wikipedia does not directly affect the Simple English Wikipedia. However, we do have a one-strike rule (WP:ONESTRIKE) that applies in some cases. Anyway, I just thought I'd update you on what we're doing (or not doing, depending on the outcome). Thank you User:Rus793 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rus793: Alright sure, not familiar with how things work here; thought you might want to immediately delete it, especially since I saw that Macdonald-ross had deleted their previous attempts here at Muhammad in the bible. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It might be immediately deleted but then the whack-a-mole game of constantly recreating it might start up. Here, a previous QD cannot be used as a reason to QD it again. However, a deletion through the longer RfD process, which you can join in on, can be used as a reason for QD if the page or a very similar one is recreated later. So it's a more effective way to deal with any future recreations. Thanks for responding. The RfD is here if you'd like to participate or keep an eye on it Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Muhammad the Apostle in the Bible. RfDs usually remain open for seven days. Rus User:Rus793 (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The article is not vandalism. The issues are: copyright, violation of; POV; and complex. The editor claims he wrote it first as "Muhammad and messianic prophecy" on En wiki, which of course is a violation of their copyright, since he did not declare it until I cross-questioned him. Authors lose their copyright when they contribute to Wikipedia. Anyway, that might not rank so high as the obvious POV and perhaps the lack of adequate sourcing, and the complexity. We'll see. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)