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

Emirate of Shabiya

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

A search for "Emirate of Shabiya" (including alternate spellings) yields almost no results. The article appears to be a synthesis of scattered historical claims, creatively assembled to portray a continuous political entity under that name. It includes a few citations, but the sources I checked do not verify the claims or support the existence of a sovereign emirate. Some don’t even mention the word "emirate." Mercier refers to the Chabbiïn/Chabbîa as religious leaders of a tribal faction who established a "veritable kingdom" near Kairouan, but this seems to be a figurative description of regional dominance rather than evidence of a recognized political state. Mooonswimmer 01:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Geography, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahbub E Khoda

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

Promotional and written by editors who are close to the subject, the editors' (@Asadpolash and @MahdiRiyad) maximum edits are on this article, and @Asadpolash uploads of several images in Commons for this article definitely have WP:COI and WP:FAN issues here. Also, most sources are unreliable and come from primary sources, so it's hard to verify the information. More reliable sources are needed for verification. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the structure of the article and the sources of information are correct. Therefore, I am in favor of keeping the article. MahdiRiyad (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sources comes from unreliable sources and most likely from promotional website. For example these:[1][2][3][4][5] and many more in the article. I also think you are connected with the subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 16:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is been modified and guided by other editor which includes the removal of a large portion of words and facts so it doesn't look promotional. We have the track of that editing. That admin was from Australia and we obeyed every single editing provided. Now you're again here creating the mess putting unrelated tags saying the same thing.

Is it that you have personal clash with the subject as you're from the same country? it seems that you're way of processing has a connection of your personal grudges with the subject. Asadpolash (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sources are unreliable (I already gave the links in an earlier reply), and you are saying personal grudges? How funny! I don't know him much. Your accounts' maximum edits are on this article and Dewanbag Sharif, the same subject, so you should disclose WP:COI. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and is well-structured according to Wikipedia standards. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, fulfilling the criteria set by WP:GNG. The references cited are verifiable and come from credible media outlets, supporting the article's factual accuracy and encyclopedic value. I strongly support keeping this page, and any issues should be resolved through constructive editing, not deletion. Hossain Muhammad (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Hossain Muhammad and user MahdiRiyad are the same user and blocked for sock puppetry.[6] He tried to manipulate this AfD with his sock account. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in terrible shape, probably due to COI, but the subject seems notable. Deletion is not clean up.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dewanbag Sharif

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

Promotional and written by editors who are close to the subject, the editors' (@Asadpolash and @MahdiRiyad) maximum edits are on this article, and @Asadpolash uploads of several images in Commons for this article definitely have WP:COI and WP:FAN issues here. Also, most sources are unreliable and come from primary sources, so it's hard to verify the information. More reliable sources are needed for verification. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the structure of the article and the sources of information are correct. Therefore, I am in favor of keeping the article. MahdiRiyad (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sources comes from unreliable sources and most likely from promotional website.For example these:[7][8][9][10][11] and many more in the article. I also think you are connected with the subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am not talking about WP:FAN, as it's not a valid reason for AFD. But, it's fulfilling the point of GNG as "Dewanbag Sharif" or related terms broadly used in newspapers like the BBC, Ittefaq, Prothom Alo and others. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 01:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only sources given in the article are not effective in AFD. You should have used Google and other searches before submitting a proposal. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I already added 2 reliable sources with the update. But it's hard to verify most of the information with unreliable and primary sources. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 02:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject clearly meets the WP:GNG criteria, with multiple significant coverages in reliable and independent sources such as BBC, The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and Ittefaq. It is a well-known religious organization in Bangladesh with a notable following and consistent presence in national media over many years. Deletion based on personal bias or perceived promotional tone violates WP:NPOV and is not a valid reason under deletion policy. If there are concerns about neutrality or tone, they should be addressed through content improvement, not removal. The topic's notability is well-established. Hossain Muhammad (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Hossain Muhammad and user MahdiRiyad are the same user and blocked for sock puppetry.[12] He tried to manipulate this AfD with his sock account. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Sayed

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

This Wp:BLP does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. It contains only passing mentions and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the cited sources, only his self-written bio contains significant coverage. The rest are brief mentions in lists. My own searches found only one other source, a Union of Catholic Asian News article that explores his position on transgender people.[13] It's better than the other sources, but isn't enough to establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui

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

Not a notable orator. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found other than news of his arrest.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates the article's notability.Almandavi (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic WP: BLP1E situation in India. Person says something that's misinterpreted. Media is whipped up into a frenzy. Authorities are forced to address the situation. Person is found innocent. Rinse and repeat. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from the arrests being mainly featured to cite the article, have not found significant coverage for the subject so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article only covers his arrest and nothing else. a classic example of a BLP1E.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:17, 29 May 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. ✗plicit 23:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Pir Badshah

(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 - I'm confused about what makes this person notable. Please ping me if you can fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The given references don’t give significant coverage about subject. Not a single in depth coverage. Google search , hard to find about the subject. Even the write up looks to cover matters which are irrelevant like name of his son. COI can’t be ruled out. Hard to find genuine matters which could indicate any signs of notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 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.

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]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

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

The community has expressed opposition to the misleading use of the country infobox at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. This spirit of this argument against misleading presentation extends to the wider article in this case. The core of this article is an unattributed WP:CFORK of Jund Ansar Allah. Much of the content is taken from there, and its conversion to imitate a country article is misleading to readers as per the RfC. The article presents a one day standoff in a mosque as a country. Development of the shifted material has furthered this. For example, that the entity "Collapsed" is stated in the lead and reinforced by the body, but there was never an entity that existed to collapse. Categories such as Category:Former countries in Asia are entirely inappropriate. The sources in the article, which mostly come from the Jund Ansar Allah article, are about Jund Ansar Allah and the Battle of Rafah (2009). They do not support the claim there was actually an independent state for one day. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon:, reading your comment, would you accept merging Islamic Emirate of Rafah into Jund Ansar Allah at a minimum? Longhornsg (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think that would benefit the subject of both articles Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into battle of Rafah 2009 JaxsonR (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah, as this is a blip in JAA's history that warrants coverage on the militant organization's page, no more. Longhornsg (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think the Battle of Rafah (2009) article could be merged as well? Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no JaxsonR (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it. JaxsonR (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JaxsonR You can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge the article with Battle of Rafah (2009). Cydopan (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears Longhornsg, Castroonthemoon, JaxsonR (first vote), and Evaporation123 are in favor of merging to Jund Ansar Allah. Cydopan wants to merge to Battle of Rafah (2009). @Chipmunkdavis:, as nom, do you have a preferred merge target?

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates