Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam: Difference between revisions

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:

Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri (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 article was recreated after 2 prior deletions due to lack of independent sources. I did a search and found no new or independent sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izalat al-Khafa ‘an Khilafat al-Khulafa (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 am unable to determine the source of this text. It may be a personal essay or copied content. It has been unsourced since 2010. Delete.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 18:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu-speaking 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)

Rationale from my removed Prod.

A complete OR and Synth list of supposed Urdu speakers who also happen to be Muslim. This list is not notable at all. No evidence to a bunch of articles listed particularly in the Modern Day India section. This is based on the assumption that because they are Muslim they speak Urdu which is just false but just outright nonsensical. And given the very improper citation style, you won’t be able to find out from this article. For instance, the citation given for Mohammed Shahid makes no mention of Urdu as a language spoken by him. You can find that citation on his article and it has nothing to do with language, instead about his death and legacy. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said if there were articles like “List of Spanish-speaking Muslims” – as in people from Spain or people from Latin, Central, and/or South America that speak Spanish, or “List of Swedish-speaking Christians”, “List of French-speaking Mexicans”, and so on. A list of topics like this are not inherently notable. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Language, Islam, Pakistan, and India. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if the citations were verifiable, this is clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE and would be of use to almost nobody. Somepinkdude (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies here. As said, Wikipedia doesn’t need an article about everything which exists on this planet. This list doesn’t come across as “really” helpful to any person. BhikhariInformer (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

don’t speak if you don’t know the regions from which these people come from are urdu speaking muslim regions, they won’t speak chinese in delhi Historybuf00 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is absurd to try to give a list of such an enormous category. We can never hope to have anything anywhere remotely near to a complete list, and a page listing a tiny incomplete fraction of them is at best useless and at worst potentially misleading. Also, if we could achieve a fairly complete list it would be so huge and indiscriminate as to be of little use. (There are also serious problems with much of the content which has been put into the article, but since that is a matter for editing rather than deletion, I won’t go into that.) JBW (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  not happening keep crying, similar lists are present search List of Punjabi Muslims List of Sikhs Historybuf00 (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They are not a list of people who speak a certain language based on certain religious, ethnic, nationality. Using workds like “keep crying” is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I’m actually surprised how did such an article stay for almost a year. It’s completely unnecessary. IqbalianThought (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in North Ossetia–Alania (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)

WP:N – main article lists conflicting percentages “Muslims constitute 4% of the population” 0xReflektor (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Ram Mandir attack (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 details a minor event which occurred two decades ago, and which has completely failed WP:LASTING. It resulted in no notable retrospectives, no policy analyses, no security reforms, no social or political shifts, no legal precedent, and in general no lasting consequences. Furthermore, the article has just a single source, entirely unsourced sections and significant issues with WP:V. For more than a decade, the article had another source, that being a WP:HOAX source which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. The article has had WP:V issues since its conception but has not been improved at all. The state of the article in 2006 and today is indistinguishable. It should be deleted. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Islam, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. jolielover♥talk 14:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Firearms, History, Law, Military, Politics, Software, Internet, Computing, and Religion. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 16:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete Little to no lasting impact of this incident, the coverage is similarly lacking. Zalaraz (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Some sources, contemporary and later follow-ups: This is just what came up on a quick Google search, I’m sure there’s more out there. The nominator should have done a thorough search for sources before nominating the article. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] Some international sources: TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The incident itself is not notable, just showing recent case updates for the accused won’t suffice. Zalaraz (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had already reviewed those sources prior to nominating the article. WP:LASTING has little to do with the sourcing of a topic, it instead deals with enduring significance. It appears you may be confusing it with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The Wikipedia policy page for WP:LASTING states “An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.” As stated above, the attack had no lasting significance, leading to no major social, political, or legal effect. Simply put, it was a minor attack with no lasting consequence, and as such, does not pass WP:NEVENT. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, as rightly stated by Zalaraz, much of your given sourcing is about court updates which do not prove notability for the incident itself, especially for a country like India where court cases of even the most minor disputes can last several years, if not decades. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though you heavily imply it, the notability of an event does not hinge on it having a “lasting” impact in the sense you’re insisting on; that’s just one aspect of one of the five criteria listed on WP:NEVENT. Another is very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. The attack on the Ram Janmabhoomi complex (and that’s not a “completely different location” as you state in an edit summary) was a big deal when it happened, as is clear from the sources, and is still remembered two decades later, after the inauguration of the Janmabhoomi temple. See these three retrospectives in Hindi sources, one notes a special security cordon on the anniversary of the attack: TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:LASTING is not simply “one aspect of one of the five criteria listed on WP:NEVENT”, as you state, inaccurately so. It is a core WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria, perhaps its most important. the policy page for NEVENT states “ A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).” As stated above by me as well as by other editors, the event had absolutely no lasting, historical significance. It was a one-off minor incident. The new three sources provided by you are also little known and regional in scope, and they also include a Godi media source (News18), which is no longer seen as serious for reliability across Wikipedia. I would like to remind you, once again, to read WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In what world is an armed attack on a religious complex by multiple gunmen carrying rifles and throwing hand granades a “minor incident”? Unfortunately, attacks like this really were a very common occurrence during the UPA era, so it can all blend together, (Personal attack removed). Anyway, these “regional sources” are read and viewed by upto hundreds of millions of people in India, and your assessment of the bias or leanings of the sources does not impact their reliability and usability for assessing notability. I have added a few non-Indian sources to my comment above. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not doing anything to prove the notability of the incident nor do any of your sources help in proving that they had a lasting impact/historical significance. Your personal opinion about what classifies as a major incident does not change it. You should strike “you should nonetheless try to maintain a steady grip on reality and not minimise horrendous terror attacks. ” because I think it amounts to a personal attack on EarthDude. Zalaraz (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was minor in that it had no lasting consequence. Please, let’s not engage in WP:JUSTNOTABLE. For instance, from 2015 to 2018, over 100 attacks were conducted by cow vigilantes, leading to the deaths of 44 people and injuries to almost 300 in total, according to a report by the Human Rights Watch. Should we make an entirely separate Wikipedia article for each and every single one of those attacks? Also, you are again ignoring WP:LASTING. All the new sources you added are from 2005, and none of them assess the historical significance of the attack in the coming years and decades. I am going to have to bring up WP:NOTNEWS once again, as you did not seem to understand it the earlier two times I brought it up. Lastly, you better strike that WP:PERSONALATTACK against me. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 13:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:LASTING. Orientls (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TryKid. BhikhariInformer (talk) 12:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited by him suggests that the subject clearly satisfies the #2 criterion of WP:NEVENT, which mentions “or were very widely covered in diverse sources”. Although it fails in the #1 criteria of WP:NEVENT owing to no proper WP:LASTING, this terror attack did play – a not very significant, but considerable role in the Ram Mandir Controversy over the past few years. Overall, seems just borderline enough for the article to save itself. BhikhariInformer (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not simply WP:LASTING that the 2005 Ram Mandir attack fails. The incident also fails WP:GEOSCOPE, another inclusion criteria under WP:NEVENT, which states, “Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.” GEOSCOPE further adds, “Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.” The WP:NEVENT inclusion criteria are not something to selectively choose, applying some criteria while ignoring others that the article does not meet. By definition, a criterion is something that should be fully satisfied by an article’s subject, something this specific case fails to do. We simply cannot say, “this article fails this criterion but should remain in the mainspace because it is WP:JUSTNOTABLE.” — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:LASTING. Has all of the problems mention in the multiple issues template. I also agree with the comments by EarthDude and the others commenting on issues with the article and deficiencies under other categories such as GEOSCOPe and NEVENT. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Edit: I am persuaded to step back from my comment about LASTING, by the comments and the apparent inclusion of similar events in the general article. I am still concerned about the other points made in the template. Nonetheless, I suppose this “weakens” my delete comment to some extent. Donner60 (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per TryKid’s arguments. I am also seeing a misunderstanding of WP:NEVENT in the nom, (Personal attack removed). A terrorist attack is not your routine run-of-the-mill crime, especially not when it receives as long-term coverage as this one has. The attack is also regularly memorialized even in sources from 2024, 2025 (as apparent from TryKid’s links), i.e. has had a lasting impact on people’s memory, which means it certainly passes WP:LASTING as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sad to see that two of the three arguing for keeping the article had to resort to making WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was noting from experience. Please do not remove or edit my comments unilaterally without seeking an explanation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – A minor attack that received some coverage when it happened but barely anything afterwards, recent news relating to legal matters of the suspects is routine and does not contribute to the notability of the event. There hasn’t been sustained long term coverage and impact was short lived. Undoubtedly fails WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:LASTING. There is no long term coverage for this event in reliable sources, if WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources are excluded, I would expect coverage from the actual reliable sources if the article is supposed to be kept. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 11:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree that there was initial coverage, just like there is for 100s of other similar incidents. However, there is no recent significant coverage about the subject from independent sources as mentioned above. That establishes the case for deletion. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources cited in the article show coverage spanning 2005 to 2019. That isn’t just “initial”. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Two comments from non-ECP editors were removed (first, second) under the assertion that this article is covered by the restrictions on Indian military history articles. This seems pretty dubious even “broadly construed”, but I’ll leave it to noting the removals here. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The removal of non-ECP comments by other editors is completely in line with WP:CT/IMH, which dictates that all Wikipedia content related to Indian military history, broadly construed, is under extended-confirmed restricted. This article, based upon a terrorist attack, is of course related to military history. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 18:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates