Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam
Points of interest related to Islam on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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.
watch |
Islam
[edit]- Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine (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)
Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is
clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course
. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zerotalk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Qazi Nisar Ahmed (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)
All sources are either passing mentions or fail WP:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Black Muslims (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 page was a disambigutation until recently, when someone removed it as a disamb, saying a valid broad concept article could be written about it. Afterwards, I tagged it as unreferenced, and one reference was added. I dispute the fact that this is notable as a broad concept and think it should be restored as a disamb. The concept of "Black Muslims" is not relevant outside of these specific examples, and Black as a racial category is not universal outside of the US (which we have a separate article on in relation to Islam). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, it would be better to just restore the disambiguation via a manual revert if your argument is to restore the disambiguation rather than delete the page, or instead start a discussion about that on the talk page pinging the relevant user(s). Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's why you take things to AfD. Should this be a disamb? Because as it is now, it is an improperly formatted one, or an entirely non-notable topic that should be deleted, which is also a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep after changing it to be a redirect to African-American Muslims, preserving the history for future reference. As a disambiguation page "Black Muslims" does not target appropriately and has few (I suspect no} suitable targets.[1] The African-American Muslims article seems to think "Black Muslims" redirects to it but I haven't found a time when it did. This target article has problems in itself but it is quite good enough to work on (suggest by removing or severely pruning the "Notable African-American Muslims" section, etc.). Category:African-American Muslims could suffice for now. However, my editorial opinions here should carry no weight over editing at that page (and its talk). The idea that "Black Muslims" is not a notable topic (think Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali) is, well, curious, but we need to clearly distinguish between African-Americans who are/were Muslims and those that are, or used to be, members of a select group of movements. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Thincat I oppose this as a redirect, because a sizable portion of the "black muslim" mentions in the US are not about actual black muslims, but about the NoI/NRM adjacent types. I do not think there is a primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- A more clear disamb would be between African-American Muslims and Nation of Islam, which altogether are probably most of the intended traffic from this page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with African-American Muslims. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- A more clear disamb would be between African-American Muslims and Nation of Islam, which altogether are probably most of the intended traffic from this page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Thincat I oppose this as a redirect, because a sizable portion of the "black muslim" mentions in the US are not about actual black muslims, but about the NoI/NRM adjacent types. I do not think there is a primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as is (i.e. a disambiguation page). This term has been and continues to be used with multiple meanings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hearth Party (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 political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir (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)
Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Categories
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)