Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic language

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. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 16:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A disambiguation page that lists a bunch of languages, like Arabic. Turkish and Pashto. What is an "Islamic language"? It's not a synonym for any of the languages listed there, it's a vague descriptive phrase that can mean everything and nothing. This has also been discussed on the talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for closer The page has been moved to Islamic languages. The final result (obviously "delete" per WP:SNOWBALL) needs to be applied to both Islamic language and Islamic languages. –Austronesier (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. This is a ridiculous dab that does not disambiguate anything. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless and vaguely racist. Spicy (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be anything actually known by this name. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV; such a page is hugely misleading. Languages do not adhere to a religion. Spiderone 22:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. There's probably a better way these languages could be in a list together, but this clearly isn't it and heck if I know what is. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Arabic instead 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. None of these languages is called the "Islamic language", and except for Arabic, they are only somehow vaguely associated to Islam; the criteria for what is included there are completely arbitrary, as we have found out in the talk page. No potential for a redirect, or a move to a coherent topic. –Austronesier (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amongst other objections, this page does not disambiguate articles that might otherwise be known as "Islamic language". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete!, This is a very fake claim and misleading. Why not all the world languages? Em-mustapha 18:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, "Islamic langauge" is not a term because langauges are not intrinsically associated with religions. Not even Arabic. I believe that the user who created this page was banned from creating redirects, due to their propensity for making up terms.
It's snowing! ☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️☃️ –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pile on at this point but I still wanted to cast a vote for WP:TNT Spudlace (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see below) — Inqilābī (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Inqilābī and UserNumber: is there any chance you might have overlooked the fact that the list you've been working hard to expand in recent days has been up for deletion? – Uanfala (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really wouldn't matter at this point anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was working hard? I was just pointing out @Inqilābī:'s heavy bias in the article. He kept making up rules as he went along as to what constitutes as an Islamic language and showed POV by including dialects as separate or same language. But a point I would like to make is why is there a Jewish languages article? UserNumber (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish languages are the language spoken by the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group. Languages spoken by Jews are often referred to as "Jewish languages" in common parlance and scholarly literature. "Islamic language(s)" is quite arbitrary and made-up (any sources until now?), just as "Christian language(s)", "Buddhist language(s)" etc. would be. Compare also the lead of Jews with those of Muslims and Christians in order to see where the difference lies. You will certainly find the expressions "Islamic language" or "Christian language" in reliable sources, but in the sense of "style/diction/jargon characteristic of Islamic/Christian discourse". –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support what Austronesier said, Russian is like 8th or 9th (I can't remember, but it's far up there) language spoken by Muslims. It would be really weird to include it in any kind of list like this though. Pure and simple, it's just not an "Islamic" language. BTW, I'd say the same goes for Mandarin Chinese. Which is in the list. Only like 0.45% of people in China are Muslims, and a much larger percentage of Chinese people speak the language. So, it's simply wrong and linguistic co-opting to say Mandarin Chinese is in any way "Islamic." When the bar is that low literally any language could be consider "Islamic." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: and @Adamant1:, good points I guess. UserNumber (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1, Austronesier, and Uanfala: please do not delete this article! To answer your queries and misgivings, “Islamic languages” is well-attested in literature. Just have a look at Google books on the subject (ignore some unrelated stuffs that have been included in the search result). Arabic is really not the only Islamic language; all languages whose speakers historically received Islamic revelation are called by scholars as Islamic languages. Islamic languages are ethnolects spoken by ethnoreligious groups all over the Old World, such as the Arab Muslims, Hui Chinese, Uyghurs, Bengali Muslims & Dakhini people, to name a few. — Inqilābī (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but any single voters don't "delete" articles. We just give opinions and the closer decides the best thing to do based on the evidence. It's not on any one user if an article gets deleted though. Since this is a consensus based system. People who think it should be keep are perfectly capable of making a reasoned, guideline based argument as to why. Personally, I'm of the opinion that maybe in a broad way there might be a few languages that academically could be considered "Islamic." I just don't think this is the way to construe it in an acceptable way for Wikipedia or that there is one. It would be fine for a personal blog or something though. Maybe even one of the alternative Wikipedia sites. It's to vague of a thing for Wikipedia though. This isn't the place for essays or original research. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: This article is not any essay or original research. I have included one reference thus far, and since this is a newly-created article, there is room for further improving it if given enough time! The article as it was originally written by its creator was a rubbish, but I have begun bettering it. Most importantly, however, this consensus should be nullified inasmuch as the users supported deleting the article based on the old revision in which the article was a disambiguation page and listed very few languages and lacked any citations. I think discussions should begin afresh reflecting its current status. Just be forbearing and give me a good while.

Furthermore, this article should be kept for two important reasons: 1) “Islamic languages” is a term actually used by scholars, as I said before; 2) This article is intended to have the same scope as that of Jewish languages. — Inqilābī (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research, as long as the topic is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages. Even Wexler uses the term "Islamic languages" only as an ad hoc shorthand (intended to mean "non-Arabic languages spoken by Muslims", cf. p.346 of your source) for the purpose of his discussion of Arabic as a tool for expressing Jewish identity. –Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

@Austronesier: If you think that "Islamic languages" is based merely on an analogy to Jewish languages, then you are mistaken. Just do Google search on the subject, and you will get many publications using the term. So I earnestly request you people to spare me some time so that I can add more relevant references (which contain no analogy to Jewish languages). Thanks. — Inqilābī (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong way to start an article. You cannot start with the vague idea of a new topic to salvage a page title of a botched obvious attempt to invent a topic, and only then begin to collect sources which potentially support the existence of the newly defined topic. A topic should be verifiable thing from the start. –Austronesier (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Does not really matter. Why not consider the article as is presented and intended now? And as I said, there is room for improving the article, even if the article originally began as a botched attempt. Please reconsider...! — Inqilābī (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is always the option of drafting it in your user space once it's deleted and then doing an AfC to get it put back in main space once it is acceptable. Although, I doubt it ever will be. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it though. There might very be another form of this that is drastically different, but along the same lines that will be acceptable. Drafting it as at least better then trying to appeal to us to change our votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the uses of the phrase that come up in search results, it's worth having a look at Mathglot's comment at Talk:Islamic languages#What is an Islamic language?. – Uanfala (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the aforementioned comments. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:08, 27 October 2020 (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.