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

Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, The individual's purported notability primarily arises from orchestrated efforts by a sockmaster and their accomplices to boost his profile across platforms, including Wikipedia. However, his importance appears to be largely restricted to Bengkalis Regency, with minimal recognition beyond this local area, let alone nationwide in Indonesia. Note that this article was deleted twice once via AfD, see (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin (2nd nomination)) and other speedy deleted under G5. And, the content of this article is just copy of those deleted article. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin (2nd nomination) ended in deletion of Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin actually closed as "no consensus". (I have no opinion on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aah.. you were right. Only the second AfD led to deletion, while the other was deleted under G5. I’ve updated the reason above accordingly..Ckfasdf (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt: Per nom, and per the recreation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- possible WP:SALT. Per Ckfasdf's nomination reasoning (and his check that the article has not substantively changed since last AfD) and the discussions at AfD no. 2. Consensus can change over time and per improved articles, but not likely in 4 months with the same article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and recreation. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 18:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabuddin Popalzai

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

Subject is only known for moon sighting controversies and lacks significant independent coverage or notable contributions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Behappyyar (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 5 August 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 August 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Ceylon Islamic United Front

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

No cite yet given for the claim that it was represented in parliament before the July 1960 election so might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely existed but not notable enough. Agletarang (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as explained when de-prodding, the party was represented in the national parliament. --Soman (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umama bint Ali

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

No apparent notability, can't find any Google Scholar results in English or Arabic. Cited source (which appears unreliable) is actually about a separate figure, a granddaughter of Muhammad. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Islam. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense and @Significa liberdade seem to have interacted with a speedy delete tag. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For quick context: Remsense marked the article for A10 speedy deletion because the article exists in draft space. Because A10 doesn't apply to drafts, I declined the speedy deletion. I have no issues with nominating for other types of speedy deletion (if applicable) or with AFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kazasker Mosque, Kadıköy

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

Current article sourced only to UGC. I have not been able to find any other sources in Turkish about this building (though I have turned up sources on mosques with the same name in other cities). Does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has only two sources. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

actually it’s a single source used twice. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, but yeah, it's not really that notable a building. I walk by it occasionally and got curious about it. There probably are more sources, but I won't be able to do research for the next few weeks (dağbaşındayım). If you could wait till early September... Yilanhoca (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft deletion. I'm also leery of accepting a Delete vote that seems to only rely on a source count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Crescent Society

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

This should never have been accepted. The history is full of editors who declined this because of its language (AI-created); I can't judge that, but I do know that we have a bunch of poorly verified factoids about a non-notable organizations, with a bunch of sources that don't even mention the subject but are synthesized into the article. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, Astronomy, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (disclosure: I approved the AfC): After reviewing most of the sources, I found that the organization does have significant secondary coverage, and I did not find any hallucinated references. As much as I dislike LLM-generated articles, this one at least appears to have undergone enough human cleanup to be a reliable article based on real sources (I did not look at earlier versions). ~~I did not encounter any sources that don't mention the subject, but I could have missed some as I did not verify every last reference.~~ It could use some work, and the article is longer than many of the cited sources, but it clears WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WeirdNAnnoyed, which decent, reliable, secondary sources mention the subject in any significant way?? The Al Jazeera article doesn't even mention the group! Drmies (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The articles in Religion Media Centre (Ref. 10) and The New Arab (Ref. 17) are both substantially about the organization and appear to be reliable. I partly retract my last statement, as many of the references in fact do not mention the organization but are about moon-sighting in general. I do think a lot of the text and references in the article could be cut. But two independent sources is generally enough to clear WP:NORG if I'm not mistaken. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Religion Media Centre and The New Arab articles are secondary sources which heavily write about the article which is all that is needed acording to the guidelines. The other articles provide some background into the topic of moonsighting and the organisation as a whole. They have now also undergone a clean up, there was no need to flag this for deletion. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your concerns about the language used and this will be addressed in future edits however all text used in the article is accurate, reliable and impartial mostly based on the secondary sources. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A reason you mentioned; the history being full of editors who rejected it for it's language was before the article underwent a massive human cleanup and rewritten. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further secondary sources alongside the two mentioned above now include Muslim Heritage and another article from the religon media centre written by a different author. There are also other sources such as from the Royal Museums Greenwich's website which speak about the planetary and astronomy shows and the annual Ramadan moonsigthing events hosted by the royal Observatory Greenwich. The Mayor Of London/London Gov website in the events section also mention these planetary shows alongside a seprate mention of the society being directly involved in the planning and preparation of various events inclduing the light up show of the London Eye something which has been written in the article and referenced with this. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

20:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates

Islam

Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin

Shahabuddin Popalzai

All Ceylon Islamic United Front

Umama bint Ali

Kazasker Mosque, Kadıköy

New Crescent Society

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates