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

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beheading video

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

1. It is synthesis [1]. None of the sources treat "Beheading video" as a subject in itself, different from "Grey roof" or "Sitting dog." The references are merely media coverage of beheadings that involved videos. 2. It's pretty insensitive, to the point of being a BLP violation, since BLP covers deaths that are very recent and controversial or murders. How would you feel to have a loved one being listed for something like this a week afterwards? Howunusual (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Virtually the entire text is unsupported by the cited sources:

"A beheading video is a type of video released by Islamist militant groups depicting interviews by hostages taken by said groups." None of the sources define the subject this way. And why would it be restricted to "Islamist...groups" by definition?
"The prelude to these videos usually shows the subject alive and pleading for their lives sometimes accompanied by their captors, sometimes not." None of the sources say that.
" The demands made are usually broad and general, such as total withdrawal of the hostage's nation's military forces from a particular Middle Eastern country, usually Iraq." None of the sources say that.
"Invariably, a video depicting the actual beheading is released a few days later." None of the sources say this. Howunusual (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to exist mainly to stereotype Islam. In addition to defining the subject as "Islamist", it was placed in the (very loaded) category "Islamism-related beheadings" [2] as well as "War crimes committed by Islamist militant groups" (do most Muslims accept these acts as part of islam, and have most of the perpetrators been convicted of war crimes?). Howunusual (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination fixed + reformatted mol uɐɯ 22:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Vycl1994 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep the third reference[3] specifically talks about beheading videos used as a tactic in war and terrorism. This [4] also mentions a recent beheading video as a subject. [5] talks about the issue as a form of propaganda. Like it or not, it is a phenomenon of the modern world, a bit like Gibbet cages from antiquity. wrt. BLP, yes it does apply, so we have to be careful, and fix the article if need be. Martin451 00:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where you're getting that. The first source you mention discusses the idea a bit, but not much. It is mostly about one particular killing. The others don't discuss "Beheading video" as a general, notable topic in its own right at all. Howunusual (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources NinjaRobotPirate provides below establish notability as a subject. The first highbeam source specifically mentions beheading videos as a form of propaganda. The original nytimes article is here[6]. The third highbeam here [7] talks about the impact of the videos. Martin451 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Howunusual, as not a general notable topic. But this is just a vote-tally process. The previous AFD was voted keep based simply on the numbers, and very evidently regardless of the strength (or otherwise) of the arguments on either side. If enough users pile on with unsupported/weakly argued demands for it to be kept, it will be voted keep, and vice versa. Writegeist (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia users cannot abuse their power to censor information on acts of terrorism. I can't believe someone who supports the existence of Wikipedia would even suggest mass deletions of information on the violent terrorist attacks of our time. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Wikipedia is not here to provide a soapbox or platform. It's an encyclopedia. That means that we decide these issues with regards to notability, not emotional appeals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My first thought was that it wouldn't be notable, but I have found many sources that discuss the topic: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I can summarize the subscription links for people without an account on Highbeam Research, but they are definitely relevant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last source you give about facebook created a fair amount of notable news at the time, the BBC covered it [14][15] with comments from the British PM. Martin451 20:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that story is about Facebook, not the subject of this article. Facebook probably has a policy on breastfeeding videos too, that does't justify an article on breastfeeding videos. Howunusual (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) ...I'm starting to see Writegeist's point. Another of those sources is an op-ed about terrorist use of the Internet generally, not this subject. It can't be used as a source for anything except the op=ed writer's opinion. As for "distasteful"--that's not a reason given for the deletion. Oh well. As it stands, almost all of the body of the article can be deleted as unsourced... Howunusual (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bleakfire. Wikipedia shouldn't censor this stuff just because it's distasteful. --Nick012000 (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)— Nick012000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep passes WP:N after good work by NinjaRobotPirate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written, sources support claims in article. NinjaRobotPirate's recent rewrite helps, too. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only on basis of frequency. There are many more "Grey roofs" and "sitting dogs" than there are "beheading videos". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N thanks to NinjaRobotPirate's huge improvements (Thanks NinjaRobotPirate!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject, article sourced, and it is a topic per se. Passes WP:GNG well.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:13, 29 August 2014 (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.

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. Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Islam in Australia

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

Unredeemable POV mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response throwing "POV" accusations does not work in this instance to delete an article. Reliable sources were cited and some sections have been worked on by a number of editors to help keep it NPOV. If you point to a particular instance where the article represents "one side" then tag the section. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & refine The page is might have specific sections requiring additional supplementary information to help balance the article, but in no way is it, as DroverWife alleges, an "unredeemable" mess. And this page will actually help WP editors on Islam in Australia page to help distinguish between major events concerning Australian Muslim community and minor fringe ones that can be relegated to its own page on fundamentalists. Thir creation of this page benifits everyone overall. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If none of the material on this page would fly on Islam in Australia it shouldn't fly here. AlanS (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response the material "does fly" on the main page. The issue is only the amount of material on a separate topic (namely, Islamic radicalism, a recent trend) is taking away from the main article on Islam in Australia (covering 500 years). Editors on that page have noted the material is increasing in size. Hence the need for a seperate article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine The article provides an important reference-documentation of significant issues for both the Australian Islamic community and the Australian community generally. The issues raised are obviously contentious, but rather than just a simple deletion, this (new) article can be improved with the addition of a wider set of inputs. Sam56mas (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC). The presentation of this new Wikipedia site does require refinement, but the issues covered should not be simply dismissed or just deleted away. For instance the latest-breaking-news, radical-Islam impacts on Australia. Position of the Australian Prime Minister. Position of the Australian Justice Minister. Position of Australian Muslim Groups.. Sam56mas (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urm, that story about the PM refers to a (disgusting) incident in Iraq involving Iraqis and an American: clearly out of scope. The story about 'Australian Muslim groups' starts off by saying that these are the views of "leading members of the Muslim community", and so obviously are not the 'radicals' which this article is supposed to cover. The fact that you raise these stories as somehow being relevant to the topic of the article raises real questions with me about whether you're editing in good faith here, or are seeking to use Wikipedia to push your views. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't see why you have to attack a new editor as acting in bad faith. He added plenty of content, not all bad. Instead, as a more experienced editor, it would be in your interest to help him edit in a manner that is more NPOV. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT: the article doesn't seek to place the issue in context, and is a WP:POVFORK from the Islam in Australia article which violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Much of the content of the article is material which was rejected or disputed in the Islam in Australia article, and an obvious problem with this article is that there's no clear definition of what 'radical Islam' is, with many of the sources being claims in the tabloid media rather than sober analysis by actual experts on this topic. I just removed several claims which were cited to opinion articles by conservative columnists who are in no ways experts on the topic, as well as some claims about the views of a living person which weren't supported by the citation given: this was a clear violation of the core policy WP:BLP, and a blockable offence for whoever added it. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete the article is just a massive POV push by 2 editors, trying to paint Islamic culture as a massive problem. The term "radical" is incredibly subjective. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response That's a nice red herring. The page does not paint Islamic culture at all, but cites instances where radicalism appears a trend. I in fact have argued for moving some material from the main page (e.g. statements by radical clerics to help differentiate between the main Islamic community and culture in Australia and radical elements appearing only recently. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:POVFORK from Islam in Australia.--TM 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:Fork only applies where the central coverage of a complete topic is being split onto two pages. In this case there is not even a section on radical Islam on the Islam in Australia page. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt this article violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE its also a WP:SYNTH the lead of the article has no association with the articles context, the sections in the body of the article have no direct association with each other except the implied religious connection. Gnan garra 10:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response WP:NPOV hardly applies as a reason for deletion in this instance. Plenty of effort was made to keep language neutral, and additional edits further refined the article tone. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does apply because radical is relative term that isnt clearly defined, the choice of lead which has no relation to the article content is intended to incite a bias and place Islam in a negative light only that is where the NPOV applies. Then use of unbalance(undue) and unrelated events(wynth) means the regardless of the use of a refined tone the article still fails to be presented from a nuetral point of view. Gnan garra 04:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and Salt. Quite a few primary sources used, giving away the fact that this is a work of WP:SYNTH AlanS (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. This may not be intentional on the part of the original article creator, but it's definitely a collection of news topics without any scholarly research tying them together. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this a case of WP:Idontlikeit? All the information is sourced from reliable news sources touching on a topic of concern to the Australian public. The photo of an Australian committing war raised concerns and awareness of growing radicalism and/or sympathy towards radicalism amongst some Australian Muslims. As per fork concerns, if anything, we should move all the tangential bits and pieces in Islam in Australia "Chronology" section on radical Muslim clerics to this page, replace all those bits and pieces with a single paragraph (titled "concerns over radicalism" or whatever) with a ||main|| redirect to this page. That way we can clean up the main Aussie Islam page from all those side bits. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid topic. The article may have some issues, but none of them insurmountable. CesareAngelotti (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

being a "valid" topic is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment scholarly sources on the topic:-study of terrorist network in Sydney (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19434472.2012.727096)-similar study of same group http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/364) The Australian govt's response to radical Islam in Australia by overhauling anti-terrorism laws, criticism of govt response. (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100590950138) I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- TandF self disclaimer specifies the Society for Terrorism Research and our publisher Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content[16] where as WP:RS requires Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Society for terrorism research isnt an independent 3rd party, and by its own admission it doesnt make any effort as to the accuracy of that which it publishes. Gnangarra 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, didn't spot the non RS source there. Ignore and use the first and last only. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actual the unreliable source is the first and last one, the second is a case study of a police investigation of one specific terrorist group and not Islam.. the involvement of members of that group was found to be the result of family influences Gnan garra 12:19, 26 August 2014 (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.

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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dawoodi Bohra Ashura locations

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

Unsourced list of dubious notability, for which I haven't been able to find any third-party source either on the web or on GBooks. I must add that I've run English queries only, as I'm not familiar with any of the languages of India.

Could be merged to Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that would add to that article's sourcing issues. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 19:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We wouldn't have a list for locations where Al Sharpton delivered sermons or locations where the Dalai Lama visited sick people. There really doesn't seem to be a point to this list nor is there any mainstream news coverage specifically on the topic of "locations where a religious group held holiday celebrations." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and MezzoMezzo.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2014 (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.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jami' Eidgah

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

Non-notable building: the only G-hits for "Al Jami' Eidgah" Bangladesh –wikipedia are to Facebook. Beside that, the page was copied from Ar-Rahman Mosque, and despite mechanical changes like Ar-Rahman Mosque → Al Jami' Eidgah and Syria → Bangladesh, it remains mostly about Ar-Rahman: The photo is of Ar-Rahman as is the architectural description. Aside from the name place and year, it is impossible to tell how much pertains to Al Jami' Eidgah. —teb728 t c 09:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails notability. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. The contents constitute a hoax. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. —Frosty ☃ 10:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to have to go with blatant hoax on this one. The author has given us an article about an eidgah (an outdoor gathering place at which special eid prayers are offered) but then gone on to describe its domes and minarets. An eidgah is very specifically not a mosque, and as an outdoor space, is unlikely to have a dome. The author has also provided us with a lovely photo of a mosque that happens to be located in Aleppo, Syria, not anywhere near the Rajshani, Bangladesh location claimed for this eidgah. The author has gone on to provide us with reliable (where are my sarcasm punctuation marks when I need them?) references such as the Facebook page and Wordpress site that they have set up for this place. All in all, I have to cry bunk! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this comment, I've gone over the other pages made by Mywikitorikul (talk · contribs), (Punot High School ‎ and Punot Union), both of which appear to be at best unverifiable and at worst hoaxes. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Punot High School ‎ and Punot Union are verifiable, see: http://punotup.joypurhat.gov.bd/node/971865 on Government portal of Bangladesh. But the eidgah apparently do not exist. The photo shown on the article is not even in Bangladesh, let alone be in Punot. This article, as of now, is absolutely a hoax. --» nafSadh did say 18:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages were hoaxes, whether or not places by these names exist. The user has since been blocked. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he created another account (I Love The Holy Quran (talk · contribs)) after being blocked. I have reported him to WP:RVAN. SmileBlueJay97 talk 07:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like he created yet another account AlJamiEidgah (talk · contribs) after his second has been blocked. SmileBlueJay97 talk 10:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually AlJamiEidgah is the first of the (apparent) sock group, then Mdtorikulislam, then Mywikitorikul and I Love The Holy Quran. AJE has been a little tamer than the others—possibly even a different person. —teb728 t c 11:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any chance of getting a WP:SNOW delete on this one? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. This article should have been deleted by now. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:08, 22 August 2014 (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.

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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Makaniki

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

Seems to fall under WP:BLPCRIME - he's been acquitted on appeal. World Defense Review article seems grounded in the conviction. National Mirror mention is 4 sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current leader of Yan Tatsine is likely to have been noted in many Nigerian sources. The riots in Kano in 1980 were very important (I was there!) and the movement continuing after the death of the leader at that time will mean that the current leader will be noticed, This is not just about a crime. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup There seems to be enough coverage of the subject over a sustained period of time to establish notability; I think the article just needs to be worked on to better display such notability. A lot of details are left out, including the reasons for rioting and the subject's acquittal. Returning to the sources and then adding those details should improve the article enough to establish notability more clearly. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and big cleanup Agreed with MezzoMezzo. I would just add that unsourced material should be removed. In it's current form the article implies (without source or even direct accusation) that this person committed all these crimes. E.g. the beginning of the last paragraph, 'after the deaths of several hundred...' (paraphrased). Beakermeep^(talk) 13:42, 29 August 2014 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Eldawoody

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

Seems to meet WP:1E Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Who will search for a police informant here, CIA or FBI? They have their own sources. WP is not a directory of police informants who are not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Delete per nom.--Canyouhearmenow 12:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only one article we clearly fail GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Googling his name brings up extensive coverage of him from very good sources including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera and CBS. I'll work on expanding the article. Qwertyzap (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was somewhat surprised to discover that he is very notable WP:GNG by searching HighBeam. I've added 10 reliable sources spanning 2006 to 2011, which should allow someone to expand it into a nice little article. I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG/BASIC demonstrated by addition of sources. Well done. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:16, 24 August 2014 (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.

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 merge to Irreligion in Nigeria. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Bala

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

Per WP:BLP1E criterion 1, Mr. Bala does not meet our notability guidelines. Perhaps a redirect to Irreligion in Nigeria would be in order, but he is not notable for his own article. Go Phightins! 03:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all that can be said about Mr Bala, then I'm forced to agree. If, conversely, more can be said about Mr Bala, then that content should be added to the article. DS (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or/and Redirect: I believe his story will be very useful for a larger article on minority religions (I am assuming not believing in God is also a religion) in Nigeria. Definitely not significant enough for a standalone article. There is no biggie in sending an Atheist to a rehab center in Nigeria sef. Darreg (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or/and Redirect is the best option.193.164.114.35 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the information is valid, but there isn't enough about the individual to justify a standalone article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2014 (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.

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

Islam

Beheading video

Radical Islam in Australia

List of Dawoodi Bohra Ashura locations

Al Jami' Eidgah

Musa Makaniki

Osama Eldawoody

Mubarak Bala

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates