Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

Shortcuts

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

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid

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

More reliable sources needed, i searched myself and found one but it was just a passing mention, needs more sources to establish WP:GNG. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It is mentioned in a book that is already cited in this article. How is this not notable?? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: texts not fully supported by the ref(s) Somajyoti ✉ 19:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid deletion reason. MarioGom (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sunamganj violence

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

partially Notable but the quality of the article is very poor and there are like hundreds of such events of violence against this community and that but this event was not reflected much after the incident, users can create thousands of pages on the same topic but at a different date in just a day but its not done due to issues with relevance, i searched for sources which reflects on this incident which is atleast 3 months after but i couldn't find much. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No. The quality of the article isn’t all that bad; every sentence is backed by a reliable source. Your claim that “users can create thousands of pages on the same topic” isn’t true, because users can never create thousands of pages on the same topic. What do you mean by “its not done due to issues with relevance”? What exactly “happened after 3 months”? What on earth have you written? Somajyoti ✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the article for yourself alright? When i meant "same topic", i meant that events of violence which is the topic of this article, thousands of articles can be created on a similar topic Because incidents of violence occur every day, just check the news, some even result in deaths, but impact matters. what I meant by relevance is that the article is not relevant unless you give a good argument to prove such, and i think you misunderstood my statement a lot, I searched online and offline for any newspapers or books that mention this topic after the incident ended to see if it is reflected on, oh ok you said "What on earth have you written", Should i say it again or do you want a list of what I wrote, make it clear. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~[double !vote by nominator] - Then explain yourself Alright? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, you've nominated quite a few articles for deletion without appropriate rationales. Take the criticism constructively; articles don't get deleted for poor quality, they get tagged with cleanup templates. Also, is there a reason that after making the noms, you sometimes reply with a different signature, like in this case, Macarius Ibne Mito? It appears misleading. jolielover♥talk 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The different signature? Macarius Ibne Mito is my real name, sometimes i use that signature or should I just keep one, ok fine i'll keep one and i know articles are not nominated for quality issues. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:N, can anyone give references on its impact? I'll be convinced that keeping is the better option then, like on its impact? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you performed a thorough WP:BEFORE? Multiple significant sources like Prothom Alo, TBS, and DW provide broad coverage indicating SIGCOV. A quick search shows notability is clearly met. Chronos.Zx (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meeting WP:EVENT and WP:SIGCOV, with wide coverage in sources [Dhaka Tribune, Prothom Alo, TBS, and DW]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wajdi al-Hajj Ali

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am the creator, I am aware that it was only highlighted by conflicts. Farcazo (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a instance of WP:BLP1E, as nom said. There is no secondary coverage aside from this event about the subject, which means that there is no real reason to believe that this subject is notable enough to have their own separate article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

- RamiPat (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a case of WP:BIO1E. Neither the person nor the event is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Malaysian Islamic Party

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

~~No other Malaysian political party's leadership positions have dedicated article and~~ the position of President of the Malaysian Islamic Party on its own is simply not notable enough to warrant one. Content of the article seems more suitable for the main Malaysian Islamic Party page if not already present.

Edit: Looking through the edit history and it appears the article was moved from the author's draft to the mainspacce by a since-banned sockpuppet. Article was previously submitted for creation and declined by User:DoubleGrazing for failing to meet notability guidelines.

Edit 2: I have struck the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST portion of my AfD submission, kindly ignore that argument. Sisuvia (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. There was an article about Malaysian political party's leadership positions which is President of the United Malays National Organisation and remained there since its creation since 15 June 2021. The main Malaysian Islamic Party page are too bloated and big (currently: 166,061 bytes) and the president need its own page. Hope that's help. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Islam, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No concrete basis on the deletion nomination rather than one in a very hurry action. You can see an article about Malaysian political party's leadership positions here like the President of the United Malays National Organisation article. Thanks and have a nice day. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that you're right about there being a dedicated article for another Malaysian political party's leadership position, that's my mistake. I will also be nominating that for deletion. As for the argument that the main article about the Malaysian Islamic Party is too bloated, the information you've included in the article nominated for deletion is mostly redundant and what I would support being migrated to Malaysian Islamic Party would take up no more than a few sentences, so I don't think that holds much water. Sisuvia (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (responding to ping) Whether or not other articles exist on similar positions in other parties is immaterial; that is the classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy. This discussion should focus on whether this subject is notable enough to justify its own article. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST isn't a deletion argument 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen the article was submitted for creation and declined as it did not meet notability guidelines and my argument (beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) is that it still does not. Sisuvia (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well then it should be Draftified 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, this is probably a notable topic (and other political parties may have similar notable positions), but I agree with the original AfC reviewer that this is not ready for mainspace. Most of it is unsourced, and even where there is a source, it's hard to see the connection to the text. For example, the Powers and duties section has one source, [1], which is a high-quality source. However, the content in the Wikipedia article doesn't seem related to the topic of that source. Müller 2014, p. 46 supports its second use, but not the first. In addition to sources, the topic seems ill defined, the Official seat and residence section seems to cover the current President's personal life rather than anything about the position, and the infobox provides as an official website the overall PAS website rather than anything directly related to the party President. I've tagged it for more sources, but this seems insufficient, and I'm not sure removing the unsourced/unsupported text is a better idea than giving time for sourcing. CMD (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

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

I'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the English article by ChatGPT, though it has referenced enwiki material too. Also, please don't remind me of Wikipedia policies. I am aware of them. I try to use common sense. Taha (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

Islam

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid

2021 Sunamganj violence

Wajdi al-Hajj Ali

President of the Malaysian Islamic Party

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

Tafsir Meshkat

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates