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

Adil Salahi

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

In my opinion this article don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and there is no reliable source quoted either in the article. R1F4T (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Nobel laureates

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR, most of the people on this list aren’t actually Muslim. Non notable list as noted on its talkpage. It contained unreliable references including Answers.com. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC) I’ll note last time it was nominated for deletion in a bundle 18 years ago and that was closed as delete. And then it was nominated again in a bundle with other articles three years ago and that was closed as no consensus. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Islam. Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. — Maile (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arabization in Malaysia

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

While this is probably a topic that could use an article, this appears to be an llm-generated text (the original author and only significant contributor is blocked for sockpuppetry). While the sources where included do seem to exist, they have little to no relationship with the text they are citing. Some are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CMD (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadhrat Ahmad

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

Fails Wp:Nbook and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

72 virgins

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

This is just an islamophobic WP:POVFORK of Houri and Palestinian suicide attacks with no content whatsoever other than a quote from the book Sunan al-Tirmidhi and an immediate "In popular culture" and an excerpt of the "72 virgins" section of the Palestinian suicide attacks article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article used to be a disamb page that clearly listed it as a misconception before Closetside decided to change it completely 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (🌲) 14:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known legitimate Islamic teaching, graded as hasan (good). We can include the view of some that emphasizing the literal interpretation is Islamophobic, but we must include the traditional view that this teaching is legitimate and was spoken by Muhammad. If quoting a real Islamic teaching, which many find objectionable, is Islamophobic, quoting Leviticus 18:22 is antisemitic and quoting Romans 1:26-27 is Christophobic - a ludicrous position. Closetside (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There Are No 72 Virgins Waiting for Anyone in Paradise, and this article is false. Not a single islamic source calls it a legitimate teaching (other than isis, and they aren't even muslims) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The teaching is traditionally accepted. See its hasan designation or Islam Q&A. While some scholars (like the one referenced above) rejects it, this is not the traditional view.

Off topic, ISIS is an Islamic terrorist organization. Just because the vast majority of imams reject their interpretation of Islam doesn't mean that they aren't Muslims. This is equivalent to saying the Crusaders weren't Christian due to their antisemitic massacres because Christian antisemitism has been rejected today by the vast majority of Christian scholars, or Sabbatai Zevi wasn't a religious Jew because the vast majority of Jewish scholars rejected his claim to be Messiah. Closetside (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is weak per Al-Wadi'i and Ibn al-Qattan^[1]

And your argument of it being a legitimate Islamic teaching doesn't make it due to have its separate article while also having the "Houri" article. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://dorar.net/hadith/search?q=%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90+%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8E+%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A9%D9%8B+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%90+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90&searchType=word&st=w&xclude=&rawi%5B%5D=

Comment: The perceived legitimacy of the tenet is utterly irrelevant. If sources report on it, including arguing against it, it exists in some form. @Abo Yemen, the link you provided therefore wholly supports that this is an existing concept. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to disamb page: This is clearly a WP:POVFORK and if it weren't for the fact that something useful existed prior to closetside's POV pushing, I'd recommend deleting. As something useful previously existed I'd suggested restoring to that. TarnishedPath^talk 16:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of 72 virgins as a concept meets WP:GNG and has been the subject of much academic and journalistic WP:SIGCOV over an extended period of time. Any WP:NPOV concerns should be dealt with on the article, but it is notable as a standalone topic. It should absolutely be covered with the appropriate context as a canard. See:

Guardian article on the topic

academic book chapter

explainer in Slate

Extensive use by would-be terrorists covered in reporting and academic literature: [1], [2], [3]. Longhornsg (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't like stereotypes either, but we have lots of articles about them. The tone of the nomination is "I don't like it." That's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so you ignored the fact that this is a WP:POVFORK just because you didn't like how my nom sounded? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, just because there is sufficient coverage it does not mean there should be a standalone page. The material is already covered at Islamophobic trope#72 virgins where it has adequate prose dedicated to it. This page should go back to a disamb. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, btw, the article seems to have something to do with Palestinian suicide attacks, and thus be covered by WP:PIA, doesn't this make non XC users unable to vote here? — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 20:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cheesedealer: it definitely shouldn't be allowed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two comments that my script flagged as having been made by non-XC users. I hope that's alright. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore disambiguation. Anything significant is already covered in other articles as mentioned by the nom. older ≠ wiser 16:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom Plantbaseddiet (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The concept is already being covered elsewhere. I'd also be fine with restoring the disambiguation page, specifically this version. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer consensus between the options discussed. BD2412 T 03:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Merge to Houri. The idea of the "72 virgins" seems to be an extreme extension of the idea of the Houri, which is better attested. Much of this article seems to be devoted to refuting the idea that Palestinian suicide bombers believe or are encouraged to believe that martyrs will have 72 virgins as their wives in paradise. But this belief is specifically associated in the article with ISIS and Boko Haram, neither of which is a Palestinian group, so the relevance of that section is unclear. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Muslim History Month

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was AfD'ed in 2022 after the organization's first year. It was recreated recently with a lot more references but I don't think the organization or observance has sources for notability. There are 3 types of deficient sources on this article, first is non-independent sources like this one. The second is the plethora of sources talking about Canada like this one because it is a separate event that is held in October. The final group of poor sources are the ones that aren't about IMHM at all and they aren't used to support background information either, like this one.

Other evidence against this having notability includes this celebration in April and this one in March.

I would support a selected merge to International Hijab Day since it is the same founder. Moritoriko (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2025 (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/2025 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Islam. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Israil

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Deletion or merging into a broader, more relevant topic (if applicable) would be more appropriate. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 23, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both the context and sourcing doesn't explain why he's notable. Where are the reviews of his works? Where are the compendiums or other collections? Bearian (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sylhetis#Other languages. The deepest source is a single paragraph, half of which is about who he was descended from, about his uncle, and about one of his sons. The remainder is just two sentences: "[Syed Israil] was a sufi saint well known for his high proficiency in Arabic and Persian. He was also known as the Malek-ul-Ulama, well-versed in both Arabic and Persian: he wrote Madanul Fauaed in Persian in 914 Hijri." The other sources manage to cover the same ground in one sentence each. Because of the absence of significant coverage, this shouldn't be a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

[1] ttps://dorar.net/hadith/search?q=%D8%A7%D8%AB%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90+%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8E+%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%A9%D9%8B+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%90+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%90&searchType=word&st=w&xclude=&rawi%5B%5D=

[1]

Islam

Adil Salahi

List of Muslim Nobel laureates

Arabization in Malaysia

Hadhrat Ahmad

72 virgins

International Muslim History Month

Syed Shah Israil

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates