Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list

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 speedy deleted per WP:G10. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 10:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Scholars on ISIS's hit list

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

Not notable. Do we really need this list? If a person were targeted by ISIS it can be mentioned in the person's article. RoCo^(talk) 06:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly on BLP grounds. Advertising a list like that actually puts people on the list in extra danger. Wikipedia should not be used in this way. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more explanatory about the BLP grounds. I am wondering if there is a general principle against having on Wikipedia such religious or political ideology-based "hit lists" or "revenge lists", such as List of people declared personae non gratae in Azerbaijan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP tells us to be particularly careful with adding to Wikipedia articles information about living persons that can be damaging or harmful to these persons. To directly quote WP:BLP: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Most typically, "harm" means harm to the reputation of a living person, but I think the same principle applies to the possibility of physical harm. Having a WP article giving an ISIS hit list increases, in very real and practical terms, the physical danger to the persons on that list. There are also sorts of would-be/wanna-be ISIS supporters who might, upon finding such a list, take it upon themselves to try to kill persons on that list. We should strive to prevent having Wikipedia used in this way. I feel that in this case the editorial value of having an article of this sort is outweighed by the harm to living subjects that such an article may cause. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Shouldn't dignify preposterousness. Fatty wawa (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with urgency this invitation to terrorism. WP:Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete immediately per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2017 (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.