Talk:Good Muslim, Bad Muslim

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 August 2021 by reviewer Bilorv (talk · contribs).

Podcasting Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reads like an essay or attack[edit]

Hello TheBirdsShedTears, would you mind clarifying your comment or referring me to relevant policies and guidelines? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the user on their talk page. I assume it's just based on the title and a misreading of the article. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim is just the name of the podcast and I'm guessing the joke is that one of them calls themselves a "bad Muslim" because they're not perfectionist in their practicing (like not doing the five prayers a day every day). But if you're not in the know I think it can easily sound like something racist (that's why it stood out to me when I was looking through the 0 days old AFC category). — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation comment[edit]

I think this is borderline on notability but I'm accepting it because I think there's not many more sources that exist and notability should be tested at AFD if someone disputes it. Commonly at AFC we say that a reviewer should accept if they think there's a 50% chance of it surviving AFD, which I do. Worth adding that this isn't a bad source to include and you could maybe squeeze some relevant details out of [1][2]. — Bilorv (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I recently got a newspapers.com account and found a few sources there as well. I'll make sure to add them in the next few days. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, that would definitely be useful in bolstering the case for notability. — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added one of the sources, but the others upon further inspection weren't much more than a trivial mention. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]