 | Points of interest related to
Islam on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:| watch |
Muhammad Abdul Malek
- Muhammad Abdul Malek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Indo–Turkic people
- Indo–Turkic people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra ( talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus ( talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- delete: "Indo-Turkic" is not a recognized category of peoples in anthropology, making this definite OR (per above). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal
- Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 ( talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra ( talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Craig_Considine_(academic)
- Craig_Considine_(academic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening ( talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening ( talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for
WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations
[1], so that leaves
WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in
the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora
[2]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after
User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening ( talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
- Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of
WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See
The Independent,
New Indian Express,
IBTimes, and
Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify
WP:GNG with the
WP:SIGCOV in the
Houston Chronicle,
Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the
WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable
WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but
deletion is not cleanup.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. I want to thank @ Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Doms in Jordan
- Doms in Jordan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like
Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article,
Dom people seems better than a redirect to
Romani diaspora.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Length of the article isn't the standard for deletion; it's the availability and quality of sourcing. I believe the existing sourcing supports notability of this specific topic. We'd only merge/redirect this if it there weren't enough secondary, reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Categories
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)
Templates
| Points of interest related to
Islam on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
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:| watch |
Muhammad Abdul Malek
- Muhammad Abdul Malek ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK ( talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Indo–Turkic people
- Indo–Turkic people ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra ( talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus ( talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- delete: "Indo-Turkic" is not a recognized category of peoples in anthropology, making this definite OR (per above). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal
- Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 ( talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra ( talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Craig_Considine_(academic)
- Craig_Considine_(academic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening ( talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- (correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening ( talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for
WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations
[1], so that leaves
WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in
the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora
[2]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after
User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening ( talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
- Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of
WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See
The Independent,
New Indian Express,
IBTimes, and
Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify
WP:GNG with the
WP:SIGCOV in the
Houston Chronicle,
Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the
WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable
WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but
deletion is not cleanup.
Dclemens1971 (
talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. I want to thank @ Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Doms in Jordan
- Doms in Jordan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like
Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article,
Dom people seems better than a redirect to
Romani diaspora.
Walsh90210 (
talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Length of the article isn't the standard for deletion; it's the availability and quality of sourcing. I believe the existing sourcing supports notability of this specific topic. We'd only merge/redirect this if it there weren't enough secondary, reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Categories
- See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)