Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to Islam on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions -

Shortcut: WP:DISLAM WP:DSISLAM

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Islam. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

• adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
• removing closed AFDs.
• removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

• tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Islam}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Islam}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

Contents 1 List of deletion discussions 1.1 Islamic studies of Christianity 1.2 Qazi Nisar Ahmed 1.3 Islam and alcohol 1.4 Islam and pork 1.5 Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin al Jilani al Husayni al Haqqani al Khwajagani an-Naqshbandi 1.6 Misc.

[edit] List of deletion discussions

[edit] Islamic studies of Christianity

Islamic studies of Christianity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

this article does not have any content that is attributed to reliable sources after two years. It is not a notable topic, and it is a clear POV fork. It should also be noted that the previous Afd does not discuss notability or whether this is a POV fork. Sefringle 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Christianity and Islam. Anything worth saying on the topic can be said there. --Born2x 00:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Islamic comparative religion. This is "about" the academic discipline, not the intersections per se of the two religions. But it's sort of pointless when most of what you see is a template. --Dhartung | Talk 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure such an academic discipline even exists.--Sefringle 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Dhartung.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung RaveenS 22:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge what? - all that the article says is "Islamic studies of Christianity is the profession of Muslim Christianity scholars and one of the fields of study in Islamic comparative religion." That's not a lot to merge. It doesn't say much more than "Islamic studies of Christianity refers to Islamic people studying Christianity". --Born2x 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What do you mean from Merge what?. You should write (Speedy) Keep, (Speedy) Delete, (Speedy)Merge or (Speedy)redirect--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• No one is required to say "delete," "keep," etc., since this is a discussion not a vote. Just the same, if it helps, delete this article since it has no substantive content whatsoever. Djcastel 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm asking, "what is it that you want to merge"? There is nothing in the article to merge. It contains a bunch of templates and one self-evident sentence. --Born2x 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qazi Nisar Ahmed

Qazi Nisar Ahmed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I belive this page may be a hoax. I am unable to find any reference to either of the people named on it. Shimaspawn 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Probably a hoax. Abeg92contribs 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep a simple google search finds Pakistani newspaper sources on several people with this name. I picked one of them; not really sure if it was the one the page creator was thinking of, but the region fits. (There's another guy by the same name who was the Mirwaiz and was killed in 1994; he appears to be notable too). cab 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- cab 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete notability problems--Sefringle 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• delte this article please. Abulfazl 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep article is updated since nomination, please see sources. BBC & Dawn are at least reliable. Please review your vote again. Thanks. --Webkami 10:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think I can safely trust The Beeb and Dawn. Realkyhick 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and alcohol

Islam and alcohol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Deletion was suggested by User:Matt57 on my talk page, who started Islam and pork. This article is similar in that it has little to no real content and also has a POV statement about Muslim youth drinking to seem more "western" (it goes without saying that there have always been Muslims who drink alcohol since the beginning of the religion, since every society of earth has had alcohol since the dawn of time). Whatever. Simply an unnecessary article considering Islamic dietary laws. Khorshid 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Islamic dietary laws per nom. Not enough information to sustain a separate article, plus unsourced armchair-sociology. A bad mix. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above, doesn't require a separate article. Sfacets 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge for now and get rid of unsourced speculation. It would be possible to write a full-length article on this subject, but at the moment there is not enough material here to make one. --Folantin 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content to wherever is correct - per everyone else. Despite finding the last couple sentences laugh-out-loud hilarious, one does have to say this just a redundant POV fork. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as above, into the dietry laws.--Matt57 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above, there only seems to be one or two sentences of worth. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per others--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge (or Expand, per Folantin's point). Jakerforever 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's interesting that we have an article on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, but none on Religious restrictions on the consumption of alcohol. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Very interesting and complex subject that deserves its own article without a doubt. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above.--Sefringle 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete What exactly is there to merge?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tell me about it. Merging of Islam and pork is also pointless since there is nothing there to merge! Khorshid 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and pork

Islam and pork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary article with almost no content. It is POV to single out Islam for this aspect of its dietary law when Judaism and other religious groups and cultures prohibit the consumption of pork as well. Islamic dietary laws already exists, and even that is unnecessary considering the existence of the halal articles. In general, I have noticed a tendency on Wikipedia to single out Islam for such things, even when they are not unique to Islam. Khorshid 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's also the fact that it simply isn't an article - just a couple of bits of gossip and lots of requests for people to write an article on the subject. Either delete outright, or change to a redirect to Islamic dietary laws. Vizjim 11:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge There in another article about this issue (Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork) and we don't need to both of them. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - other articles already cover this. Metamagician3000 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Poor quality article. Looks like it might have been created as an unnecessary fork. As Metamagician says, this is already covered elsewhere on WP. --Folantin 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork --Mhking 15:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork; there tends to be a bit of attention paid in the United States to this particular facet of Islam -- read the links on the page -- and I was trying to give a voice to that, but as an article, I think this would be better developed in a large topic about dietary restrictions. --User:Crtrue 12:34, 23 March 2007 (EST)
• merge anything relevant to Islamic dietary laws then delete. There is not enough content here to warrent an article.--Sefringle 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it would be better to develop this article and have both Islamic dietary laws and Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork reference to it, rather than maintaining both updated when the other one has been modified. --FateClub 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Merge into Islamic dietary laws per below discussion. --FateClub 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. Clearly an unecessary content fork, no need to keep it. A redirect to, say, Islamic dietary laws would also be acceptable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that too, a redirect... but to which one? Islamic dietary laws or Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork? --FateClub 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, this is bad. Turns out that the appropriate section in Islamic dietary laws simply directs us to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, which in turn directs us here to Islam and pork. I have to rescind my previous !vote and change it to a merge, as we can't have a redirect that references itself, and a simple delete would leave redlinks where information ought to be. Therefore I would propose merging any useful and verifiable information to the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork article, as the first references it. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. Garcia-Fons 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, merging any appropriate content into wherever. Islamic dietary restrictions arguably should have an article; a particular aspect of them, not so much. -Amarkov moo! 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I dont know what the big deal was. We have Islam and alcohol as well. Nominator, can you please also nominate Islam and alcohol? I will leave you a message. --Matt57 01:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CommentIslam and alcohol is one of the sub-articles of Islamic dietary laws. But in the case of pork it has two sub-articles and one them is excessive.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I will make sure Islam and Alcohol goes as well. They are both small stuff that should be mentioned within the dietry laws. Thats the reason why infact I made the Pork article. --Matt57 04:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I hate to tell you guys going for "merge" this, but there is literally nothing of value in this article to merge. The only two links are to a Google search for "pork + islam" and a blog (see WP:BLOG). So whats with people voting "merge"??? Weird. Khorshid 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge to anywhere - there is nothing worth merging. As it stands, the article is complete junk: completely POV and an OR essay. Right, I'm off to Saturday lunch. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to be anything worth merging really.. ITAQALLAH 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge with Islamic dietary laws - not necessary to have an entire article dedicated to this - and there is currently no article per se anyway. Sfacets 13:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.