Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:43, 23 May 2024

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Islam. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Islam|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Islam. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Islam

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. - AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly meets the WP:ACADEMIC policy 4 no criteria. Because, some books written by him are taught in the university of Bangladesh, See here. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Also, several academic books are taught in university.Md Joni Hossain (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based arguments would be appreciated. The fact that books written by the article subject are used in university courses is not a valid argument to Keep. We delete plenty of articles on academics who have written books used in coursework somewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not able to find reliable sources in English that show his academic profile, I assume they must exist in non-English languages so would appreciate it if someone could offer them for consideration. Currently there are claims on the page but, as far as I see, not much which can be verified per WP:V. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: "Dr Abu Bakar Muhammad Zakaria - Curriculum Vitae" see here. 202.134.9.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, a self-published CV is not suitable for WP:V JMWt (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His tafsir is the only bengali tafsir, published and approved by Saudi government printed by King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Quran https://quranenc.com/en/browse/bengali_zakaria and his book "Shirk fil Qadim wal Hadis is a famous book, many scholars quoted from it including Ali al-Sallabi, his Book Hindusiat wa tasur is the most famous Islamic academic book on Hinduism in Arab world after the book "Fusulun fi Adianil Hind" written by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, and he wrote the book as his thesis in Madinah University under the supervision of Ziaur Rahman Azmi and followed him, he is an official bengali representative of Saudi religious propagation ministry who supervise the bengali section of www.islamhouse.com/bn and he has also entry in shamila library https://shamela.ws/author/1532 and there is a possibilty that he may be going to be an emeritus professor of Islamic University, Kushtia by university authority as his age is now 65.202.134.11.243 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is WP:GNG . Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. We haven't had anything offered which meets this standard in any language, so we can't WP:V the basics. Those who want to !keep cam of course rewrite thr page as/when they find acceptable sources. JMWt (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt Are you want to say that Offline Source is not acceptable? You should remain in WP:good Faith. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which offline source meets the standards of the GNG? I am remaining to assume Good Faith in the part of other contributors and don’t really see why you are suggesting otherwise. If there is an offline source that shows the importance of this person, which they’ve not written themselves, that I’ve missed then I’m happy to correct myself. JMWt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt I mention my opinion in first comment. [Please see here]. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well, as others have already stated, being the author of university textbooks is not regarded as suitable notability for en.wiki

I'm not saying that you are not offering an opinion in good faith, but I am saying that this is not a policy reason for !keep JMWt (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 see here, his book about hinduism is highly praised in Zad TV by Muhammad al-Munajjid and the presenter also telephoned the publisher and requested hum to translate the book in English. His book Hindusiat wa Tasur was highly praised by Abdullah bin Salam al-Batati in the program "Al-Khajanah" of Zad TV owned by Muhammad Al-Munajjid and wished to be translated in English giving the book highly importance as a detailed work on Hinduism from the Islamic perspective.[1] His book Ash-Shirk fil-Qadim Wal Hadith has been partially translated into Indonesian by Abu Umamah Arif Hidayatullah as "Syirik pada Zaman Dahulu dan Sekarang".[2][3] Besides, the same translator also translated some of his other works into Indonesian language.[4] - 202.134.14.139 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zafrul Hasan Rizvi

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not any reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the subject. This is another one of those WP:SYNTH pages where an editor uses his own analysis or synthesis of materials that implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found not a single reliable source with in-depth coverage that can establish notability for the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG, nothing found about this person. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:05, 29 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Chekroun

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

Academic biography that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Their articles and books are not widely cited and there is no available significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, History, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails NACADEMIC (it seems she is not a professor, let alone one of the special types that is presumed notable), and a web search found no significant coverage, independent or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF, I don't see any books that could pass WP:AUTHOR, and her position (chargée de recherche au CNRS) is still pretty junior. Directrice de recherche (the next level up) would be more likely to be notable, although still not something that leads to automatic notability. (A note, though, re the previous comment "not a professor": the French system separates academic researchers from academic teachers more than the US or UK ones do, and she is on the research track. "Professor", in the French system, is the top teaching-track position. But our notability criteria favor research over teaching. So it is entirely possible that she may become notable in a few years despite not being so now.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Al-Rifaey

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

BLP of an Islamic scholar who does not appear to be notable either as an author or for anything else really. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's so hard to assess articles where no sources in the native language of the project are going to exist. Such articles are not a requirement for inclusion here should they be. However the (auto-translated) sources cited here seem to be a forum post, the top level of a website, and two very press release-y articles seemingly provided by the person himself or his publicist. This does not seem sufficient for a properly written and sourced encyclopedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks in depth coverage from reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2024 (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.

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Ahmadullah

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

Reference are self published, primary sources and promotional. These sources do not establish notability of the person. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bangladeshi newspaper constantly covered significance news and column about Sheikh Ahmadullah. This proves that he has fulfilled WP:GNG. I suspect the removal proponent is aggressively trying to remove Ahmadullah and his organization's articles. Because in recent times he has proposed the removal of these two. And he didn't make any edits on the wiki other than these. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 08:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent and reliable sources are available. Ontor22 (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it has been variously asserted by nom and the current majority for keep that the sources do/don't establish GNG, there has been no discussion of individual sources that could move towards decisively substantiating such evaluations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [5] Kaler Kantho, [6] Jugantor, [7] Republic TV and many more notable, reliable and established news link can be presented about him. See google search [8] [9] [10] 202.134.11.243 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Sunnah Foundation

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

This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. There have been no new comments here after two relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. Discussions about a future Merge or Redirect can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doms in Jordan

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

This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article, Dom people seems better than a redirect to Romani diaspora. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Length of the article isn't the standard for deletion; it's the availability and quality of sourcing. I believe the existing sourcing supports notability of this specific topic. We'd only merge/redirect this if it there weren't enough secondary, reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 3 June 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Islam in Romania. Going with an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque of Bucharest

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

This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Romania, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best reason for deletion. The tangible topic that exists is the controversy around the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a keep I can go for at this point is a merge unless someone comes with a better reason to keep. Aintabli (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with what? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Romania for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (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.

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Islam ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syed_Zafrul_Hasan_Rizvi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amélie_Chekroun}}

Revision as of 06:43, 23 May 2024

Islam

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates