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 Fall of the Islamic World

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

No notable sources available Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Germany. Kingsacrificer (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Egypt. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's notable, but let's merge anyway.~~ [Rephrase for clarity: Keep, and merge as a normal editing process per WP:PAGEDECIDE]. After a fair bit of hunting, I think the two best sources for WP:NBOOK are the journal review cited in the article and this short newspaper review. I had to find a new, working link for the journal article review, but it's sigcov and the journal seems OK at a glance, with a reputable-looking editorial board chaired by Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

My summary of the other sourcing available: The article cites another newspaper article that I wasn't able to access, but the title sounds like an interview; while searching, I found a fair number of profiles and interviews that just give this book a very passing mention. I also found a second journal review, in Mankind Quarterly 51 (4), p. 490-499; I can access it through my library, but I get spooky "this page is not safe" warnings when I try to go directly to the site, so I don't link it here. The review is certainly sigcov (five full pages by Herbert F. Mataré) but I'm not sure if the journal constitutes a reliable source.

However! WP:NOTPLOT tells us not to have articles that are summary-only descriptions of works. The book may be notable, but the current article contains nothing but summary. With WP:PAGEDECIDE in mind, I advise a merge to Hamed Abdel-Samad for now; there's plenty of room for it there. It could always be split out again into its own article should that ever be called for. Feel free to ping me to execute the merge if that is the consensus. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom. I’m less convinced that the book is notable but this solution seems best as AtD. Mccapra (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why this article is under an English title under which no source has ever referred to it, or why it wasn't linked to the Wikidata item for the German article on the book, but there are quite a few sources in the dewiki article [1] giving critical reception.

This book has multiple reviews in prominent German news sources, including FAZ [2], the Austrian broadcaster ORF [3], others [4]. That plus the articles in the page and the one identified above, I think are enough to where the PAGEDECIDE concern is overcome. Several other pages on the dewiki article that I have a harder time evaluating. Also several interviews in RS about the book but that counts less. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn Curious if this would change your opinion? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great finds, that makes the notability much more evident! I am happy with a keep or a merge. Since WP:PAGEDECIDE is a rationale for merging content on topics that are standalone notable, I tend to interpret it in light of the content that exists (not just the sources that exist). There are sources for someone to write a proper standalone article here... but I do think the currently written plot summary would fit just fine on the author's article and would better accord with WP:NOTPLOT over there. However, since I agree it's notable, that discussion can be handled via regular merge discussion if this AfD closes as keep. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I wouldn't be irritated if someone wants to merge what little is here, as you are correct about NOTPLOT. But if someone does want to expand it later and have an actual full article, I want to be clear that this AfD should not be used against that as the issue is not notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks on mosques in the United Kingdom

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

This article was tagged for WP:G5. Technically it meets the criteria, but I think this has the potential for being a useful encyclopedia article. I couldn't obviously find a good source discussing the topic as a list, just the individual incidents, so I'd rather put the decision out to the wider community to discuss what to do with it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Islam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added a source that gives figures on general trends rather than individual incidents. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A trend would be fine for an Islamophobia article, but not for NLIST. NLIST would need to have some semblance of a list in significant secondary coverage, but it need not be complete. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's pretty thin gruel, possibly the notable incidents could be a section in the Islamophobia in the UK page, that feels more appropriate than a list of references to papers.Halbared (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please, this was created - and just now returned to - by a pov-pushing sockpuppeteer. Let's not encourage this. -- asilvering (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm generally one to WP:DENY but it is silly to throw away perfectly good content. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and histrionic emotional appeal. Pls provide a legitimate reason as to why this content, which has been covered by multiple sources that fit NLIST, needs to be deleted. Lettlre (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also added another general source which is based of this from the British Muslim Trust, clearly linking the individual events. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable topic wit plenty of available sources saying it’s a thing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources showing NLIST criteria met:
- Osuh, Chris (2025-11-07). "Flags and Christian nationalist slogans feature in soaring attacks on UK mosques". the Guardian. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
- "£10 million boost to protect Muslim communities". GOV.UK. 2025-10-23. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
- Butt, Maira (2025-09-02). "'We belong here': British Muslims defiant as mosques attacked in flag frenzy". Religion Media Centre. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
- "June". TELL MAMA. 2025-09-26. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
- Raja, Irfan (2024-08-08). "Why are mosques under attack in Britain?". Daily Sabah. Retrieved 2025-11-21.
BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, these support Islamophobia in the United Kingdom more than this list. But looks like were headed for keep or NC anyway. ← Metallurgist (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. Seems a bit ORy and not passing NLIST. Id like to see a bit more than the BMT list. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the principle that Wikipedia should not keep an article created by a user who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry weeks earlier. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, I would argue that the sources and improvements by SmartSE and others mean there is "significant edits by other editors" making the G5 criteria invalid. This essay has further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those others are the same sock.Halbared (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid enough reason to delete a P&G compliant article. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, doesn't pass NLIST, and BMB for the non-smartse edits. And as for the Smartse edits, well, one of them just straight up failed verification with the given source & called something an attack in Wikivoice,[5] using a contemporary news report that said it was being investigated to see if it was actually an attack. [6] Now, could it be? Maybe- but an administrator should know to find a source for that material before adding it. This is a very contentious political area, we do not need people throwing the first page of their google results in and saying "close enough", and if these are the type of edits two admins are going to look at and say "okay", well, then I don't think we can maintain a PAG compliant stand alone page, not when we already have Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. Notable attacks can be discussed there; we don't need a separate article. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 11:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, @Smartse Would it be too great of an imposition for me to request you stop adding contemporaneous news reports, when the investigation was ongoing, to support entries on the list? It's very much veering into original research at this point. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🧸 20:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about discussing notability here and any issues with article content on the article talk page? SmartSE (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is very much not original research. There was an arson attack on the mosque; that is not in dispute. The investigation was to determine if it was a terror incident. This is not a list of terror incidents but a list of attacks and that is unambiguously an attack. And it described as such in reliable sources which talk about it being just one of many attacks, hence the justification for this list. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to comment that the sock has now retuned under two different socks to edit the list.Halbared (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreenLipstickLesbian. — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Unambiguously passes NLIST, as the topic of the article "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as evidenced by the sources post by BobFromBrockley. WP:OR is not a justification for deletion if editing can remove the OR, which it can - simply making structure criterion for inclusion would obviate this criticism. Contra some other comments here, NLIST does not require that the topic of the article be discussed as a list specifically (e.g. a news article saying "here's a list of mosques attacks in the United Kingdom"). Katzrockso (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with BobFromBrockley and Katzrockso that this topic has been covered in general in many sources, and this does not fit G5 because it was edited by others. Lettlre (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Katzrockso. BobFromBrockley gives further arguments. --Cyfal (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every time someone attacks a religious building in a country, is not a reason to have a list of it. None of these incidents were notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so not a valid navigational list either. Dream Focus 15:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't correct, two of them are linked to their articles. Peacehaven mosque arson and 2017 Finsbury Park van attack. ~2025-36446-14 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15 things listed, two have their own articles, not enough to justify it. Dream Focus 04:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The topic has been discussed as a list by reliable sources as noted by Bobfrombrockley. It easily passes WP:GNG. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SYNTH. In addition to problems with original research, if the incidents are in most cases not sufficient for stand alone articles under WP:NEVENT then I don't think we should have a list. If in future there are enough stand alone pages to have a list (ie five at minimum) then I would happily change my mind as long as the list is limited to entries with stand alone articles.4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this list violate OR/SYNTH? Katzrockso (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole point of having a list article so that events which don't individually meet WP:NEVENT can still be documented? The WP:ATD-M part of the deletion policy suggests merging individual events into lists. SmartSE (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as well as per GreenLipstickLesbian. Would also support a redirection to Islamophobia in the United Kingdom as an ATD. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Templates