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[edit]

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous history of the organization Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, which was formed in 1926[1], was corrected on the page In 1989[2], a new organization was formed after resigning from this organization due to differences in ideas And the person who wrote the article made a full correction on the first page intentionally / for his own people (WP:CONFLICT),WP:PE and added the previous established year to the new page and wrote the new page in a promotional style. More content from the first page is also included in the new page ~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, and Kerala~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete page on Hitler, USA, Samastha of AP Sunnis and EK Sunnis just because there are people who have COI. Content is to determined using the reliable sources. I am neutral in this. That is why I say "(of AP Sunnis)" and "(EK Sunnis)". Both the AP and EK Sunnis claim their respective Samasthas is the real one. I can show that. So accepting one group's only claim could be CONFLICT OF INTEREST, especially in Wikipedia where Ahmadiyyas are categorised alongside Muslims. Reliable sources call Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".I am sorry to say calling for its deletion must be nothing other than COI since reliable sources do not support that claim. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very reliable The Hindu calls the Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama". There are numerous other sources that say the same. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dool News calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha (AP Samastha).
Mathrubhumi.com calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha (AP Samastha)
Times of India also calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha. Moreover this terms the Samastha "Samastha Kerala Jem Iyyathul Ulama"
Scroll.in says there are two different Samasthas
OnManorama.com calls the Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha and mentions "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama"
News 18 says there are two Samasthas.
Arab News calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a "Samastha"
The New Indian Express calls Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".
Manoramanews.com says there are two Samasthas.
Thejas News calls Kanthapuram's Samatha is Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama.
Kerala Kaumudi calls AP Sunnis' Samastha "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama"

Neutralhappy (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ahmed Reza Khan (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paigham TV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since its creation in 2012. No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Islam, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[7] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

Islam[edit]

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)[edit]

Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar)[edit]

Paigham TV[edit]

Islamic Association of Palestine[edit]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh[edit]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates