Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:07, 7 February 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Islam.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population

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

This list, as a standalone article, fails WP:N guidelines, and would be better suited as a subsection of the Islam in Europe article. This type of listing doesn't make sense as a separate article. There's also no reason for this list to only be covering the European Union rather than Europe as a whole.

In addition, this article is in a terrible state despite years of existence. Most of the items on this list are uncited. Much of the items that ARE cited use information from outdated or inappropriate sources. For example, books (especially decade-old ones) generally aren't a reliable source of information for demographic data.

I propose this article be deleted and a new, higher quality list be inserted into the Islam in Europe article. 296cherry (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Europe. 296cherry (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This has the hint of a WP:CONTENTFORK from Islam in Europe, and the article's contents are best amalgamated into that entry or "Islam in [country]" articles. I'm still shocked by this sentence: some [figures in this article are] estimating the percentage of Muslims by using the percentage of Asians in those cities. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, none of the statistics in this list are consistent in how they are produced. Some use "percentage of Arabic speakers", others use "percentage of Asians". What a disaster. 296cherry (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
1. The article transgress Wikipedia:No original research.
2. The article depict a misleading picture of muslims in Europe, where muslims inhabit mostly western Europe (and are here since less than one century).
  - Limiting to European Union instead of Europe create systemic bias since a big part of muslims (and muslims in name only) of Europe inhabit countries outside of European Union such
    - Bosnia and Herzegovina
    - Albania
    - european Turkey, including several million in european part of Istanbul
    - european Russia
  - Limiting to cities create systemic bias since muslims (and muslims in name only) of western Europe mostly came from immigration during 20th century so (has stated by the article) «generally live in major urban areas», whereas the muslim population in central and eastern Europe is much older so distribution is more balanced between countryside, towns and cities, see for a good example distribution of muslims in Bulgaria but also
    - Bosnia and Herzegovina
    - Russia
3. If this bias is intentional then the article is an endorsement of the Eurabia narrative, a far-right conspiracytheory which original variant is very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion while other variants are very similar to the Great Replacement narrative, so ping @Thismess, Hairy Dude, Volunteer Marek, Doug Weller, and Horse Eye's Back:
I found two other articles displaying the same patern in their titles and should be deleted:
- Tamil Muslim population by cities
- Tamil Christian population by cities
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been canvassed so maybe my vote shouldn't count, but if I'd seen this before being pinged I would have voted delete in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NLIST and the above. Fork of the Muslims in Europe in the intro also has some merit. No objection to a redirect to Muslims in Europe as an ATD. gidonb (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially WP:SYNTH and WP:LIST, but also WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:SOAP. This is barely more than original research, synthesized in a list of random facts. Wikipedia has never been a private web host for one theory or another ideology. This potentially is a case of WP:TNT and even WP:SALT. It's a hot mess and can't be made into a normal article, absent starting from scratch with sysop supervision. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 14 February 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!} 23:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar

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

An Islamic Shia scholar and former representative of Shia marja' Abu-al-Qasim al-Khoei in the United States until 1982, article only lists two sources one of which is an Amazon link to one of his book, fails WP:GNG. Last two works mentioned in the article do not appear to be written by him, and all except for first ones are translations of other works. Lolekek (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Lolekek (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially this article consists of claims about the subject made by himself, supported by a single inaccessible link to something in a book on a much more general topic. I can see that he is the author of multiple books, but I don’t see any in depth third party coverage either of those books or of him as their author. There is a possibility that this is all simply made up or embellished, but even if it is all true, it hasn’t made him notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no WP:SIGCOV here. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Nostik

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

non-notable, virtually every source in the article are self-published NAADAAN (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, Morocco, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : PROMO. Only semi-independent coverage is the MEMRI linked used, and that's barely acceptable. No sourcing found at all, outside of spotify, youtube and the usual suspect list of download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b. First of all, regardless of the notability of the topic, it was written in good faith without any conflict of interest. Second, I've checked the sources in the English article, and while about 8-9 of them are not independent (or dead), and were used only to reference the subject's opinions, the rest are reviews of his books or interviews with the author. Do these not count as "independent"? In any case, if you search on Google only in English, for sure you won't find many independent sources about this topic. Apart from Memri, there's also the paper "Atheism in and out the Moroccan context" cited in the article, and this lecture abstract. Also mentioned in this paper and this article, and this book about atheism. In French, there are many articles which review his books and or include his biography, such as this article about atheism in Morocco, this review of his third book, a review of his second book, his interview with Hamed Abdel Samad translated to French, and this article about best selling books in Morocco (and similar ones such as 1). In German, this interview. In Arabic (Standard and Darija), there are just countless articles by independent newspapers with reviews, interviews, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two French book reviews look fine, the third isn't much help. Interviews don't help notability but you can use them to colour the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His first book has its own article by the way. Ideophagous (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article, but I believe the topic is definitely notable. Nothing in the the guidelines says that the notability has to be proven through English sources only. I've added several sources in my response to Oaktree above. FYI, there was already a discussion on the notability of this topic on frwiki, and the verdict was to keep it. The French version of the article definitely has better sources though. Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, even though some of these are passing mentions I'm not going to create an entire fuss about this. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article I hope that you eventually get to that and any other articles you get to make to avoid such an AfD. :-) NAADAAN (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NAADAAN Apart from adding more reliable sources, what do you suggest to improve the article? Ideophagous (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is decent, although though I suggest it fits the WP:MOS better. The grievance here isn't really about how the article is written, moreover the faulty sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes AUTHOR with a few book reviews, but boy does this need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b feel free to suggest improvements. Ideophagous (talk) 21:47, 5 February 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 05:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Hafouzlik

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

No indication of notability, sourced only to open wikis. Draftification was contested. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Islam, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. It’s just some hobby universe on Fandom that has five followers. Probably made up by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original characters. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an original character, it is a meme ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete sry but Wikipedia is not the place for your personal memes and fandom is not a reliable source Killarnee (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, i only made this article as a joke hoping for a miracle that it would be accepted so yeah, i dont mind its deletio’. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:46, 10 February 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 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhr ad-Din al-Burdwani

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

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 11 February 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. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merge or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

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

The article is about Chera Perumals of Makotai and specially it covers Legend of Cheraman Perumals and it already covered about Thajuddin. But the current article is not give reliable source and some sources NOT directly confirm certain events. Splitting of the Moon is a believe, not historical and scientific event. Did Thajuddin lived during the time of Muhammad or after Mohamed? Legend of Cheraman Perumals already cover the topic and no need to have another non proven person. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Antan O 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Thajuddin's page in Wikipedia is justified as it encapsulates a significant historical and cultural figure. While acknowledging the challenges regarding source reliability, Thajuddin represents a figure of substantial folklore and tradition, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultural narratives. Despite the debate surrounding the historical accuracy of certain events attributed to him, his presence in historical discussions provides insight into the socio-political milieu of his time. Thajuddin's purported existence, whether contemporaneous with or postdating Muhammad, offers a lens through which to explore the interplay of legend and history in the broader narrative of the Cheraman Perumals and their era. Therefore, his inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage and historical discourse surrounding the Cheraman Perumals of Makotai. DonParlo (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: DonParlo is the same person as the socks below --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kings are automatically notable. Somebody moved the article to Draft. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kings are notable. But, Why this duplicate page (Chera Perumals of Makotai and Legend of Cheraman Perumals)? Already this article was declined. User already mentioned it as folklore and tradition, and it already covered in Legend of Cheraman Perumals. There is no reliable source, and the reliable sources point to Cheraman Perumal, not so called Thajuddin who met Muhammad (from Kerala to Mecca). --Antan O 11:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about potential duplication and the classification of the topic as folklore and tradition, but the existence of a separate page dedicated to Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives. While it may be acknowledged as folklore, documenting such narratives contributes to the broader understanding of regional legends and their cultural significance. Moreover, although sources may vary in reliability, the presence of differing accounts underscores the diversity of perspectives and interpretations within historical discourse. As such, maintaining a distinct page for Thajuddin allows for a nuanced examination of this figure and his alleged encounter, enriching the discourse surrounding Kerala's historical and cultural landscape. The article in Legend of Cheraman Perumals does not cover this Legend in detail. DonParlo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

//Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives// Can you give reliable source for such claim? --Antan O 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ O. Loth, Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office (London: Secretary of State of India, 1877), no. 1044.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 95-98.

^ Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.

^ H. H. Wilson, Mackenzie Collection. A descriptive catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India (Calcutta, 1828), II, appendix, p. XCV.

^ Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 98. DonParlo (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scribd.com/document/519315791/Qissat-Shakarwati-Farmad-a-Tradition-Con DonParlo (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this objectively this wiki page does not do that much significant to anything. So what's the point of deleting it. I think people should keep this page. Is it gives a deeper insight into the legend. ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To begin with the subject of the page Thajuddin, there is no reference that it was formerly called Tamil King Cheraman Perumal. More so, there are contentious websites and some references that are just scraps as if someone did a Google search to find a word and used it as a testimony for a much larger paragraph. I find it impossible to verify the paragraphs from the references given. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legend of Cheraman Perumals. The legend of the introduction of Islam to India is certainly notable, but the present article presents this legend as fact. The Legend of Cheraman Perumals article can be expanded with the specific events in the legend (the vision of the split moon and the pilgrimage to Mecca) if Indian historiographic sources are sufficient to verify that this is, in fact, part of the known legend. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would be good, but need to cleanup per RS. Antan O 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep: It is a important to keep this page as it expands on the over all legend and story of Thajuddin putting it in other pages such as the Legend of Cheraman Perumals doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Keeping the wiki page on Thajuddin's existence is justified for several reasons. Firstly, Thajuddin is a figure recognized by Islamic scholars, lending credibility to his historical existence. Numerous Arabic texts, including works like the Qissat Shakarwati-Farmad, reference him, along with recorded hadiths attributed to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Moreover, the presence of a tomb dedicated to Thajuddin in Oman serves as tangible evidence supporting his existence. Therefore, considering the scholarly acknowledgment, textual references, and physical evidence, maintaining the wiki page on Thajuddin is logical and warranted.
ManOfJusticekk (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per nomination and heavy involvements of SOCKS --~AntanO4task (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting did not establish any clear consensus, but only few sock votes. Relisting again for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a confusing mess. The discussion above is all over the place, the sourcing seems odd. TNT is probably best. Could draft it, but we'd need to start from zero again. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Edit: People should keep the wiki page of Thajuddin even if it is poorly sourced because it provides a starting point for further research and discussion, potentially leading to the improvement of the page's quality over time. According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "Information provided in an article must be verifiable and cited to reliable sources, even if it is not actually footnoted in the article." This means that while poorly sourced information should be improved, the existence of the page itself is justified as long as efforts are made to enhance its reliability and accuracy. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending it to draft would better suit what you're describing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ID seems new and your edit patterns are similar as per above socks. Antan O 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am from India I use a VPN it sends me to random places I don't edit much as I just started this account I only fix spelling errors usually. தமிழ் வீரன் ஜைத் (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kings area always notable, and a first king to embrace a religion is absolutely notable. The article needs work for sure, but that doesn't justify deletion. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't see the duplicate page that already exist with primary name. AntanO 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legend of Cheraman Perumals DarmaniLink (talk) 20:06, 23 February 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 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at the Battle of Badr

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

unsourced mess of a list that admits it's incomplete. blow it up. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Badr. A bit messy, but still not a good reason to delete the article. Plus the battle is already notable. Draftification can be an alternative based on what you gave. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of value in this article, just a whole lot of non-notable names, even the blue linked articles are very questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were possible for such a list to be reliably sourced (which it clearly isn't currently, and almost certainly never could be), there is nothing inherent in mere participation in a battle that would justify it under Wikipedia notability criteria. Were such lists permitted, we could potentially end up with monstrosities like a List of participants at the Battle of Stalingrad with entries running into the millions. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brachy0008. Shankargb (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a "participants" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for those proposing a merge. What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Reply At the bottom of the article, there seems to be a cited list of the individuals who participated, so that could serve as a source if it complies with WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss the merits of merging vs deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've got to agree with the main points stated above. Merely being in a battle doesn't merit a list article. Merging isn't appropriate, because there's nothing to merge: a reliable source, currently lacking, is required for each item to be merged. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also got to agree with the main points above, merely being in a battle doesn't give an individual any notability, it feels very WP:COOKIE to include every person, and as AndyTheGrump said, articles listing the participants at other battle would run into the millions. It would be little more than a database. Shaws username . talk . 00:40, 13 February 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Haji Ismail Harun

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

This article is hard to understand. What it looks like, though, is a puff piece. WP:PEACOCK concerns are always fixable, but the real concern here is WP:RS. Can RS be located with community input? What I can state for certain, is that no person named Mustafe Ismail or Mustafe Haji is known in Norway in the slightest, yielding 0 hits in the nation's comprehensive media archive. On the other hands, there are considerable problems of how his name should be translated, and the article has already been through a disputed move. Unless the community has fruitful input, my opinion is that it's too indiscernable what makes him pass WP:GNG with WP:RS. Geschichte (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Somalia, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets WP:PSTS secondary source BBC News Somali, [1] — YT of Sheikh Shibli; [2] QalasQalas (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single reliable source is not enough. Youtube is irrelevant. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY; Horseed Media, Hiiraan Online, MENAFN, and Sahafi Newspaper, may strengthen and reinforce the WP:RS, increasingly overall reliability of the WP:Article.
QalasQalas (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not swayed in the slightest. One of the sources is a letter to the subject. Another is a "newspaper" hosted by Wordpress. We need some non-involved eyes on this, which I hope the closer/relister agrees on. Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by BBC and other highly regarded news outlets. Also quite well known in the Somali-Norwegian community. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that he is well known in the Somali-Norwegian community? BBC does not cover this claim, and a person by that name is demonstrably utterly unknown in general Norwegian society. And what is he known for? This is wholly incomprehensible from the article. Something about wisdom. Wisdom in which outlets, forums or publications? Which independent sources have assessed these publications? Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So widely known, there is no coverage about him? The BBC article seems to be all there is. I don't see anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horseed Media is a RS per the CiteHighlighter (green), but it's a small article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional PR sheet - no RS support for wp:n. Llajwa (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. BLPs require strong sourcing. QalasQalas did an exhaustive BEFORE and none of the sources they found meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:32, 9 February 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. ✗plicit 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Azeem Barkhiya

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

No information available in the third party sources, the 2 references given are written by Shamsuddin Azeemi, his disciple in sufism. I searched in Urdu, Hindi also but it seems to be non-notable religious figure. — Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Pakistan, and India. Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not have third party sources to meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've looked through some old revisions, and there are a good number of links in them that might be worth evaluating for reliability/independence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some opinions from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NBASIC. I've found two reliable English language sources and one Urdu language source, which I've added to the article. The subject has a substantial article on the Urdu Wikipedia [8]. The subject also seems to also get regular coverage in the Urdu Digest, but it needs a native speaker to review this. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evaluation having taken place... final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:36, 5 February 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/List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaykh_Muhammad_Sarwar}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hicham_Nostik}}

Revision as of 18:07, 7 February 2024

Islam

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates