Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting


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

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
  • Keep (as the page creator) – Subject is covered in multiple independent reliable sources, including Dawn, The Express Tribune, ThePrint (India), De Gruyter (academic), and JSTOR. The article has been rewritten in a neutral tone with strong citations addressing past concerns. Khaatir (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – The current version has been substantially revised: promotional tone trimmed, unreliable/WP:NEWSORGINDIA-type citations removed, and replaced with stronger sourcing. It now cites mainstream outlets like Dawn, The Express Tribune, ThePrint, ABP and Navbharat Times, along with peer-reviewed academic studies (JSTOR 2022, De Gruyter 2023, Univ. of Chitral 2024, German monograph 2024). These provide independent, significant coverage across Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Europe. Thus, the article now addresses past AfD concerns on sourcing and neutrality, and demonstrates notability per WP:GNG. Khaatir (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural note: Some comments misstate the deletion history. The article has indeed been deleted several times in the past, but not always through AfD. It was speedily deleted under A7 and G12, and once via PROD, in 2020 and again in 2024. Those are not AfD outcomes. There has only been one prior AfD, in October 2023, which closed as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Masood). The present discussion is therefore the second AfD nomination, not “round three.” Khaatir (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have looked at the references in the article, and I agree with the nominator that most of them are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article has also been deleted multiple times in the past due to notability concerns. Beyond that, there is nothing in-depth about the subject. I don’t think the subject passes even WP:BASIC. Some of the sources used in the article, such as Times Now, Bol News, Somoy News, and Express News, are completely non-reliable. Their inclusion in the article only serves to mislead other editors or waste their time. One more point to other editors and closing admins: the editor who posted the keep comment above is the article’s original creator. Baqi:) (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not clearly independent per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. WP:SALT because this is now round three at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable individual, he got some media coverage for his viral clips on social media, and a blasphemy controversy. But most of this coverage is WP:NEWSORGINDIA and not WP:SIGCOV. Subject is evidently not passing the criteria mentioned in Wp:GNG. Also SALT is applicable as per the fellow editor, 4meter4. Zuck28 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEWSORGINDIA and BLPSOURCES. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:26, 26 August 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]

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]

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]

Muttum Viliyum

edit
Muttum Viliyum (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)

Not notable with single source. Dirty Dolphish (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Ahmad

edit
AfDs for this article:
Abdul Karim Ahmad (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 is a recreation of a deleted article that was previously removed through the AfD process. I initially tried G4, but another editor blocked its use. The creator of this article is currently under SPI, and if confirmed, the article can be speedily deleted under G5. The subject itself fails GNG and WP:NPOL. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: Yes, and that was also one of the reasons cited for deletion in the previous AfD. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2025 (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.

Craposyncrasies

edit
Craposyncrasies (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)

Notability not established ("reception" appears to be just random bloggers and even a Facebook post!) and reads like an advertisement. M.A.Spinn (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Was a WP:BEFORE done? The book was reviewed in this English language journal [6] There are also several newspaper reviews in the mainstream foreign press given in the foreign language wikipedia article. There's clearly enough independent coverage to meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Ceylon Islamic United Front

edit
All Ceylon Islamic United Front (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)

No cite yet given for the claim that it was represented in parliament before the July 1960 election so might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:28, 19 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=1307712215"