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

Black Muslims

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hearth Party

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

Islam

Black Muslims

Hearth Party

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates