Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSISLAM)


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.
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:
Purge page cache watch


Islam

edit

Bahahuddin Nadwi

edit
Bahahuddin Nadwi (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)

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Nadwi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahauddeen Nadwi (2nd nomination). Created by a sockpuppet evading a block. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University has been kept after previous deletion nominations (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University – result: speedy keep). The subject of this article, Bahauddeen Nadwi, is not just affiliated — he is the founder and long-serving VC, and his name appears in reliable sources including official institutional materials.

The only real issue here seems to be confusion over name spelling variants (e.g., "Bahauddeen" vs. "Bahahuddin"). That shouldn't be grounds for deletion — it can be corrected or merged rather than removed entirely. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that was speedy kept in 2013 because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but SCHOOLOUTCOMES was changed in 2017 so that schools are no longer always notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better reference would be the latest AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University (4th nomination) were the result was keep -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising to see that Darul Huda Islamic University has faced four AfD nominations, despite being an established institution with coverage in reliable sources. The repeated nominations of related topics like Bahauddeen Nadwi and the deletion of Al Jamia Al Islamiya raise important questions about consistency in how Wikipedia applies notability standards for educational and religious institutions.
If WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES no longer guarantees notability for all universities, then we need to rely even more on clear sourcing standards and community consistency. But in cases like DHIU repeated nominations seem excessive.
I understand the need to prevent spam or promotional content, but deletion should not become the default response to institutions or people outside mainstream Western academia, especially when reliable sources exist.
What is the goal of repeated deletions if notability is already reasonably established? Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "mainstream Western academia", all universitirs are judged by the same standards regardless of where they re in the world -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that standards are global, but enforcement feels inconsistent. Why different outcomes for similar Islamic institutions in Kerala?
  1. Rahmaniyya Arabic College – live  
  2. Jami'a Nooriyya Arabic College – live  
  3. Coordination of Islamic Colleges – live but tagged as promotional  
  4. Academy of Sharia and Advanced Studies – borderline  
  5. Darul Huda Islamic University – kept after 3 AfDs  
  6. Al Jamia Al Islamiya – deleted  
The founder VC, Bahauddeen Nadwi, shaped Darul Huda’s vision, curriculum, and global recognition. Under NPROF criterion 6 or WP:GNG, this kind of lasting institutional impact deserves weight.
This isn’t about automatic notability — it’s about consistency and recognizing non-Western academic leadership.
If the university is notable, the founding VC who built it over decades is likely notable too. Otherwise, both should be considered non-notable — but not selectively. ~~~~ Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The "keep" AfD result at WP:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University (4th nomination) is highly suspicious, especially given that 2 of the keep !voters were subsequently banned. The only thing that "deletion is the default response to" is the contempt for proper processes that has been shown here; block evasion, source falsification, inappropriate use of AI, conflict-of-interest editing, WP:GAMENAMEing, etc; my goal in nominating this page for deletion was to ensure that those antics don't prevail, and I would do the same for any subject regardless of whether or not it is outside mainstream Western acaemia. And while this is expressly my own opinion and contrary to policy which says that the content decision should not be influenced by other's behavior, I personally am totally fine with the consequences of resorting to such tactics being that articles on topics that would otherwise have survived be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, the Vice Chancellor of a clearly notable university should also be considered notable — especially if they are the founding VC and have held that role over a long period. The position itself carries significant academic and public responsibility.
While I understand that notability must be supported by reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG, I believe that holding a top leadership role at an institution like Darul Huda Islamic University — which has been subject to multiple AfDs and kept — is a strong indicator of independent significance. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic notability for academics usually requires a named chair rather than being a vice principal, see WP:NPROF for the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being vice chancellor would usually cut it... but there is no reliable source evidence this university counts as a major academic institution. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the university doesn't count as a major academic institution, then why has the article about it been kept after 4 AfDs?
You can’t disqualify the VC on one hand while reaffirming the institution’s notability on the other. Either both are non-notable, or the founder of a repeatedly-kept institution deserves a fair evaluation. Hidaya Chemmad (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Notable” for Wikipedia purposes does not equal “major”. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could 'Hidaya Chemmad' be the blocked users [1] and [2]? 'Hidaya Chemmad' is a recent account, has a very limited range of articles of interest, is being very insistent about these articles, these articles are the same ones which the blocked users were focused on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF09:81C0:CF73:9EAC:E3BF:71E8 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shamoun

edit
Sam Shamoun (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)

Non-notable subject. All I could find were blogs and press releases. ~Rafael (He, him) • Talk • Guestbook • Projects 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jusuf Zimeri

edit
Jusuf Zimeri (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)

Unable to find WP:GNG level sources. Most of the cited sources are self-published or connected to the source, and the ones that aren't make only trivial mention of the subject. Subject also does not seem to qualify for any WP:NPROF criteria. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Masood

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tariq Masood (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)

The article has already been deleted twice, once in 2023 and again in 2024. Looking at the current version, it reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a résumé written in a promotional tone. As for the references, the majority come from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which are largely routine coverage. The subject seems to appear in the news from time to time mainly due to controversies, which again amounts to routine coverage. I don’t think the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR in any way. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as the creator of this article) – I respectfully disagree with the deletion nomination. The subject meets WP:GNG because there is clear evidence of significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources across different regions and languages. In Pakistan, outlets such as Dawn have covered Tariq Masood’s role in national debates including his participation in anti-extremism seminars and opposition to domestic legislation, while The Express Tribune reported on his participation in major religious conferences. In India, mainstream newspapers including The Print, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times and Rajasthan Patrika have all reported on him, particularly in the context of blasphemy debates, public threats, and controversies. In Bangladesh, media such as Somoy News, Kaler Kantho, Dhaka Today, Dhaka Post, and Naya Diganta gave extensive coverage to his 2025 tour, including addresses at leading universities and mass gatherings, with multiple outlets analysing the reasons for his popularity among youth. In addition, his presence is documented in academic work: a 2024 German-language study on antisemitism in social media lists him among Pakistani clerics whose Urdu sermons contained hostile rhetoric towards Jews and Zionism,[1] while a 2023 peer-reviewed chapter on Islamic preaching analyses his use of social media as part of wider trends in South Asian religious discourse.[2]
    The range of sourcing—spanning Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Germany—demonstrates coverage that is neither routine nor trivial, but substantial and sustained over time. It includes reporting on his educational background, international preaching, controversies, and his role in social debates. This satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, since coverage exists in both news media and academic literature. The article draft may have contained promotional tone, but this is a matter for neutral copy-editing and trimming under WP:NPOV, not a reason for deletion. Given the breadth and independence of sources, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards and the article should therefore be kept. Khaatir (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)    [reply]

References

  1. ^ Hübscher, Monika; Mering, Sabine von (2024-06-17). Antisemitismus in den Sozialen Medien [Antisemitism in Social Media] (in German). Verlag Barbara Budrich. p. 168. ISBN 978-3-8474-1950-1.
  2. ^ Sajjad, Mohammad Waqas (2023-12-18), Akca, Ayşe Almıla; Feise-Nasr, Mona; Stenske, Leonie; Süer, Aydın (eds.), "Mufti Tariq Masood and the Performance of Religious Speech: Social Media and Religious Discourses in Pakistan", Practices of Islamic Preaching: Text, Performativity, and Materiality of Islamic Religious Speech, De Gruyter, pp. 237–256, doi:10.1515/9783110788334-012, ISBN 978-3-11-078833-4, retrieved 2025-08-18
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - previous deletions:
    • 21 November 2020 - PROD - "This article is about a non-notable character in a TV series."
      • That first article was not about this person
    • 23 November 2020 - speedy deletion "(A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
      • The current version of the article clears the low bar of WP:A7 by a wide margin
      • This second article followed the PROD by 2 days - was it about the same TV character?
    • 14 December 2020 - speedy deletion "(G12-type: copy-paste from draft space)"
      • WP:G12 isn't applicable to this version
      • This third article followed the PROD by 3 weeks - was it about the same TV character?
    • 24 October 2023 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood.
      • 3 editors !voted to delete (besides the nominator). All 3 were subsequently indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of banned users Syed amjad08, Dove's talk and Darshak.parmar. One other person expressed reservations about deletion but did not formally say "keep". Had the socks been discovered during the AfD, it would probably have been kept open and re-listed.
      • This fourth version was about the same Muslim cleric as the current article
    • 6 September 2024 - speedy deletion "(A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)"
      • The current version of the article clears the low bar of WP:A7 by a wide margin
      • Was that fifth, 2024 article about the cleric or the TV character?
I don't think any of the 5 previous deletions apply to the current article. Some weren't even the same person. I'm not arguing that the article should be kept -- just that the previous deletions shouldn't have much bearing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

Admin note, just answering to AB's questions about deleted content: September 2024 deleted article is a much worse article about this same person, as were December 14 and November 23, 2020. None are relevant to the content in the current article at AfD for reasons you indicated above. No opinion on merit of current one as to notability Star Mississippi 01:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nadia Ali (actress) (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)

The 2017 AfD was snowed in favor of retaining the article. I believe this was incorrect. The subject fails ANYBIO. The subject has not received a well known honor nor has the person made a widely recognized contribution to the field. The claim to fame is basically “Muslim adult performer.” This performer post-dates Mia Khalifa’s hijab scene, so Nadia Ali is not any sort of “first,” in the field. Even if she were, what exactly is her contribution here? There were remarks in the first AfD that she was threatened and it got coverage. A woman was threatened online? Hardly a man bites dog situation. If one wants to argue ANYBIO, how was adult entertainment changed by her brief time in the industry? It was not. Even then, ANYBIO (which I maintain she does not meet) is merely a likelihood, not a guarantee. There is substantial overlap between ANYBIO and WP:ENT, so this might be a little redundant, BUT she did not star in many adult films and as I mention in why I believe the subject fails ANYBIO, her short-lived career did not have a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Even the sources themselves state she did a small number of scenes. WP:EVENT would not consider her notable for any of the scenes had they gone viral.

The other argument is WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is such: There are two Daily Beast interviews and a quote of her all written by the same author (an actual notable performer). For the purposes of GNG, this would be a single source only if those interviews are considered sufficiently independent of the subject. The other sources are also interviews and press releases.

In the first AfD, someone listed a bunch of sources as a rebuttal. The problem is some run afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the repetitive natures of those that don’t run afoul make me question the intellectual independence and if such a list was confusing existence with notability. Mpen320 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Open to changing my vote if someone brings better WP:THREE sources. Until then, the subject fails WP:GNG per my analysis of the sources mentioned above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm leaning Keep with references 1-3 listed here, and articles in the Daily Beast with a couple of paragraphs about the subject like [8] (ProQuest 1813269656) and [9] (ProQuest 1780576122, part interview). This one [10] pasted as a link above from The Times is a summary of Daily Beast interviews (I think it should count). I'm seriously considering Mpen320's WP:ANYBIO point though. One could argue that being one of the first Muslim porn actresses might not be notable, but there is coverage of the subject, and the ANYBIO argument can be subjective. Nnev66 (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have essentially repeated what the previous editors mentioned. Those sources are op-eds, syndicated news, no consensus on reliability and The Times is inaccessible. This is without even considering the fact that they are interviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm explaining why I'm leaning Keep, hence my summary of the references. I think it's important to have references under consideration for GNG have numbers (i.e. not be pasted as links or with descriptions) so it's easier for editors to discuss them. The following in my opinion contribute to WP:BASIC: 1, 2, 3, 6/7 (I'm counting these together as one reference), 8. Note 8, The Times reference, is accessible by me so perhaps trying opening it in a different browser. This reference's content is based on a Daily Beast interview (primary source) but since it is using the DB interview as a basis for its content it's secondary. Nnev66 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time, please upload or share an image of The Times reference as it is not accessible on my mobile or desktop even after trying with multiple browsers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The title of the article is "Actress threatened after hijabi porn is unveiled" and there is a picture of Ali with the caption "Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States". The article starts off with a couple of paragraphs about “hijabi porn”. Here is the content about the subject from the article:
    Nadia Ali, one of its stars, said she was “doing porn as a Pakistani woman for the liberal movement, bringing women in a scarf or a head wrap to the camera. Now it’s no longer behind closed doors.” Ali, 24, who grew up in the United States, told The Daily Beast website that she was a practising Muslim and sought to avoid explicit references to Islam in the titles of her films. “I’ve been told, ‘you’re not a Muslim, you’re a disgrace to Pakistan, Pakistan won’t accept you,’ but I do come from a Middle Eastern background and I am Muslim, not the way my parents are, but by practice,” Ali said. “For me, it’s about the Pakistani culture, not the religion,” she said. “This year I plan to do a lot of girl on girl and solo scenes to show the world that Middle Eastern girls of Pakistani descent really do get horny.” Ali and Mia Khalifa, a Lebanese adult film actress, say they have received death threats after performing dressed in a hijab. Nnev66 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think this discussion might need a bit more time to consider whether sources provided are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persian revolts against Ali (656-661)

edit
Persian revolts against Ali (656-661) (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:NOR and WP:GNG and possibly AI generated Iranian112 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 19:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand The revolts were an important part of early islamic history as well as of Iran. The article be expanded which will include the revolts which broke out after the collapse of the Sasanian Empire during the reign of Caliph Uthman and hence includes all the revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate. The title be changed as " Persian Revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate " however the article name can be negotiated later onwards.
    Legion of Liberty (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The expanding that you're working on is still not useful. you should at least try adding page numbers to the sources so it won't fail WP:V. R3YBOl (🌲) 07:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed much of the important citations with page numbers and added additional sources during the process which now verifies the events with reliable sources like al tabari and also multiple other references as well as secondary references. Further work is in progress. Let me know your consensus after the changes made Legion of Liberty (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    al-tabari isn't a reliable source because he's a primary source. avoid adding primary sources, and remove al–tabari from the sources because Wikipedia doesn't tolerate primary sources. R3YBOl (🌲) 11:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern about al - tabari being a primary source , however i have added several secondary and modern academic references such as (Touraj Daryaee, Mary Boyce, Elton Daniel, etc.) which verifies the historical context and reliability of Al-Tabari as well as the sources are not solely arab but also some persian affiliated as well as Independent sources and meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Al tabari is a primary source but (Al tabari is NOT a Primary source and) not sole one but in conjunction with reliable secondary analysis. I believe the page needs improvement rather than deletion and I'll willing contribute with a unbiased perspective. Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui

edit
Muhammad Muslehuddin Siddiqui (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 did a simple Google search on this person and only found a few fan-promoted websites. The article cites nine references: sources 1 and 7 are unreliable, user-generated fandom sites; 8 and 9 are death notices about someone else, with no direct relevance; and 5 and 6 are not references at all. The only primary source (Ahmad Noori) is used twice, but it is also unverifiable. No secondary sources are present to demonstrate the significance of this person as a religious figure per Wikipedia guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 08:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable secondary sources, including scholarly Islamic websites and books, document his influence as a qari, preacher, and founder of Madrasa Anwar-ul-Islam. His authored works, like Samajiyaat, further establish notability under WP:AUTHOR.
Sources 1 and 7 are not user-generated but reputable Islamic platforms; 8 and 9 are mischaracterized, as they provide context on his Barelvi contributions. Siddiqui’s cultural and religious impact in Sufism meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Zuck28 (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zuck28: Do you have any idea what secondary sources are? If you do, please share at least one. The number 1 source is https://www.thesunniway.com and number 7 is https://alahazrat.net . How did you reach the conclusion that these are reputable historical websites? What is their editorial methodology? Their very names suggest that they are fandom-style blogs run by specific groups. According to WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:USERGENERATED, such fansites are generally not acceptable as sources. The only unverifiable primary source is (Ahmad Noori). According to WP:PSTS, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. So, in that case, we have no secondary scholarly sources to verify the topic's notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since one of the votes to keep is from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion



Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam&oldid=1308801125"