Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Islam[edit]

Muhammad Abdul Malek[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Turkic people[edit]

Indo–Turkic people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal[edit]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 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! 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [1], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [2]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
  • Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil[edit]

Al-Jami al-Kamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think this book is notable as it lacks in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. I tried redirecting to the article about its author but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is first ever complete collection of Sahih hadith. The article is important. [1]59.152.2.172 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that link is dead and it’s not clear what you mean by “the first ever complete collection of sahih hadith.” There have been several much earlier authoritative collections. This sounds like it’s just a mashup of those. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see this video, it will make it clear, https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=263pYfjjZHWouyJ1&v=gHmB5LG1JxU&feature=youtu.be. 59.152.2.172 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok but that’s not an independent source. I’m looking for in-depth coverage of this book by independent reviewers or commentators. Mccapra (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Although Professor Azmi has authored dozens of books on various important Islamic topics, his voluminous compilation of authentic Hadith titled “Al-Jami’ al-Kamil fi al-Hadith al-Sahih al-Shamil” is considered the most important. It is one of the most comprehensive books on Hadith by a single scholar since the dawn of Islam. Azmi has taken pain to collect the authentic Hadiths dispersed in numerous classical books. It is made up of more than 20 volumes, containing about 16,000 Hadiths dealing with various issues such as creeds, rulings, worship, biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), chapters of jursiprudence, interpretation of the Glorious Qur’an and many more. Azmi will be remembered for this great service like those earlier compilers of Hadiths collections such as Imam Bukhari, Imam Mslim, Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhi, Imam al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and Imam Malik."[2]

"The once Hindu youth Banke Lal and today's Sheikh Ziaur Rahman Azmi have done many important and significant works. 'Al Jamiul Kamil Fil Hadees Sahihis Shamil' is one of his most important books. Many learned hadith scholars and Muslim scholars say that this book can be called the only book in the history of the last 1400 years, where only authentic hadiths have been placed without any repetition. 16 thousand hadiths have been compiled in this hadith book. Shaikh Ziaur Rahman Ajmer has spent 15 years of work in this. He has taken the help of more than 200 hadith books in this large work of 20 volumes."[3] 59.152.2.172 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are fanboy comments not policy-based arguments for keeping. Which genuinely independent sources agree with this assessment? Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra - You have a preconceived agenda to delete this Wikipedia page. First you deleted the page unilaterally. Then when it was restored, you try to delete it by organising a vote...and then when you couldn't achieve a consensus, you trash dissent as "fanboy" comments.
You are abusing your position as an editor.
To the substantive. This is the first time - or at any rate - amongst a handful of attempts to compile a comprehensive statement of the sunnah/hadiths. It is an historic achievement. Like all achievements, it will take time to become prominent in an identical way that the now canonical texts like Sahih al-Bukhari took decades to become canonised (see Prof. Jonathan Brown: https://drjonathanbrown.com/books/the-canonization-of-al-bukhari-and-muslim/ ). What you are doing is effectively deleting Sahih al-Bukhari because immediately after publication there were not a slew of peer-reviewed academic journals discussing it! The author died two years after publishing the second edition, this also contributed to the lack of fanfare publicity. That is not a reason to delete.
As for sources, there are some. There could be more. But Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size if every single page required a welter of peer-reviewed articles.
As for al-jami al-kamil's significance, two of the most prominent Islamic academics and missionaries have showered praise on the work:
- Dr Yasir Qadhi - Yale Phd, Medina Munawara Masters. Author and academic [see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZI_ykyv8o ]
- Dr Zakir Naik - Author of dozens of Islamic books and missionary with tens of millions of views. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR1rkq8vs0o ]
This alone is sufficient to establish the work merits a Wikipedia page.
To be clear: A Wikipedia entry does not require readers to agree with an academic work or project. You evidently are desperate to efface it. But your personal views must not be allowed to dictate what information exists to the world.
You are trying to censor information - dismissing opponents as "fanboys". This is not befitting of a Wikipedia Editor.
Do NOT delete. EdKolank (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Please see WP:NBOOK. How does this work meet these criteria? Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find links to read the book, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most pure hadith book in the world after the Quran
Tanvir Rahat (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article needs to have numerous tags retained for cleanup and improvement, and more sources would help. In spite of this, several low reliability sources appear to exist, though improved reliability source would be welcome.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low level reliability sources do indeed exist. That is the problem. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The book is the most comprehensive compilation of the Prophet's sayings. Salah Almhamdi (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "ড. মুহাম্মাদ জিয়াউর রহমান আজমি (রহ.) যেভাবে বিশ্বে খ্যাতি লাভ করলেন ভারতীয় নওমুসলিম আলেম". Kaler Kantho. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2024. ) # Azmi, Zakir (3 March 2017). "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. Retrieved 27 December 2021. # "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019. #media, news and (31 July 2020). "Indian-Hindu Brahmin who became Islam's Hadith Scholar dies in Saudi Arabia". Etemaad Daily. Retrieved 30 May 2024. #Khalid Hossain, A F M (6 September 2021). "'গঙ্গা থেকে জমজম'-এর লেখক কালজয়ী এক প্রতিভা". Daily Naya Diganta (in Bengali). Retrieved 30 May 2024. #"پروفیسر ضیاء الرحمٰن اعظمیؒ کی رحلت". Daily Jang. 18 August 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2024. # Azmi, Muhammad Khalid (September 2020). گنگا سے زم زم تک کا روحانی و علمی سفر [The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam] (in Urdu). New Delhi: Al-Manar Publishing House. # Siddiqi, Irfan (September 2020). "بلریاگنج سے جنت البقیع تک" [From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi']. Urdu Digest (in Urdu). 60 (9). Lahore: 41–53. Retrieved 27 December 2021. all these independent sources confirm this infotmation that this book is the most comprehensive collection of Sahih hadith till now. 202.134.13.134 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Every single one of these is not in-depth coverage of the book at all, it is coverage about the author. This is the reason I redirected the article about the book to the article about the author. There is no question in my mind that the author is notable for Wikipedia purposes, not primarily as the author of this book, but as a convert with an unusual life story who has devoted his life to scholarship. Not a single one of these sources meets the requirements of WP:BOOK as it is not in depth coverage of the book. Also extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Getting a favourable mention from a newspaper journalist is not that hard, but if you’re maintaining that this is the most pure Hadith book in the world after the Quran, I’d expect that to be supported by an authority such as the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, one or more Grand Muftis, one or more Ministers of Religious Affairs in a Muslim majority country, or one of the representative bodies of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. In fact there are no such sources which mean that this claim is not generally recognised. Mccapra (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doms in Jordan[edit]

Doms in Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion



Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates

  1. ^ الحي, عيسى بن عبد الله بن عيسى العبد (1 January 2023). اختيارات الإمام الطرطوشي في قضايا السياسة الشرعية (in Arabic). Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية. ISBN 978-614-496-201-5. Retrieved 28 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. 3 March 2017.
  3. ^ "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam&oldid=1227523418"