Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Islam

[edit]

Jeju Islamic Cultural Center

[edit]
Jeju Islamic Cultural Center (edit | 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)

No claim to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching in the Korean language I can find this Jeju Ilbo article: [1], but it's only a one-sentence mention. Can't find much else. seefooddiet (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

[edit]
Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan (edit | 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)

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Islamic Law and Constitution, rewrite and keep. This book has been translated into English from a language not written in Roman script, so a search in English alone will not suffice for BEFORE. We need to know how to transliterate the title into the original script before we can dispute its notability. This seems to be a reprint of part of, and chapter 2 ("The Islamic Law: Its Introduction in Pakistan") of, a book called [The] Islamic Law and Constitution [2]. This book (see another edition, which may or may not have the chapter: [3]) seems to have a lot of citations (80+ in GScholar), and numerous editions, reprints and translations, and reviews in English [4] and other commentary in English (see eg Google Books). His best known book: [5]. There is also a section "Some Opinions about the First Edition" in a section "Islamic Law and Constitution" [6] which quotes book reviews (1) from J.N.D. Anderson in "International Affairs", London (which is here) (2) from "The Dawn", Karachi (3) from "The Hindustan Times", Dehli and (4) from "The Hindu", Madras. Seems to satisfy TBK, GNG and criteria 1 and (judging from the article on the author) criteria 5 of NBOOK. [We should also have an article on the bibliography of islamic law: see [7] and numerous periodical articles.] James500 (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 This is not a reprint - you can find copies of both books online, they have a completely different table of contents and contents. It is not the one chapter of that book, it is a full other book with entirely different contents. I oppose any move because from looking at it it appears to be an entirely different book.
    Per Mccapra above I think this is just a translated collection of individual essays with no direct Urdu equivalent. It has nothing to do with the other book. If someone wants to write an article on that book then they can but this is not the same thing. This one has 0 sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see, at least some of the text of the 1960 English translation of "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" appears to be taken verbatim from chapter 2 of the 1955 English translation of "Islamic Law and Constitution". To me, the 1960 book looks like a rehash of part of the 1955 book. There are bibliographic sources that say that the books "Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan" and a number of other apparently derivative books (such as "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" and "First Principles of the Islamic State") are "A Part of Islamic Law and Constitution": [8]. James500 (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 There are plenty of edited collections that have content similarities with one another, with single chapters/essays being duplicated. Just because a work of one author is included in two collections does not make them the same collection. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom (edit | 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)

Delete: Article is based upon false premise that the perpatrators are "muslim" nor are there sufficient primary or secondary sources to base the assumption that they are motivated by their faith, nor do we have primary or secondary sources to even affirm the perpatrators faiths. The gangs mentioned throughout are not all even "asian" or therefore "muslim". The article would best be served being incorprated into the existing CSE in the United Kingdom page where there is a section on grooming. This article does nothing but indlude wild assertions and obfuscate valid information countering the lede and name. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, okay, so, here's the reason:
I'm putting this as delete mostly because, studies show that well, Muslims aren't over-represented in actual abuse statistics.
I don't really have anything to particularly say here over than, the WP:POV edits are disgusting and for me truly put a disgusting taste in my mouth, since one of my parents used to be Muslim, and no, not the Prawn cocktail flavor chips. Anyway...
Just like what Chaotic Emby mentioned, it would make it more neutral to add "moral panic" or at least "allegation(s)" in the title.
Anyway, thats my two-cents on the matter honestly. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 21:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has good sources and is well cited. Agree that maybe changing the name or merging would be appropriate but not deletion. There does appear to be some debate the use of the term "Asian grooming gangs". Article does have a section addressing both the terms Muslim grooming gang and Asian grooming gang. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% needs to be merged, the use of "muslim grooming gangs" as a dedicated article is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight given the particular obsession with the topic and ethnicitiy of perpatrators, despite the fact that a lot of perps in these cases are not muslim and are still listed in both the list and map. Problemativ through and throuh. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi TwinkleStarzz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for making your first contribution. The page has been renamed after a WP:RM discussion which changed it from South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic. The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK. The first WP:PROD believed that the article tried to obfuscate or downplay Muslim/Asian grooming gangs hence why new material has been added to provide WP:NPOV. Given the sufficient WP:RS coverage this topic has received, I believe that the page can merit its own article without being merged into a subsection of the main Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom page. There is no implication in this article that perpetrators are motivated by their faith, and quotes are provided from Islamic community leaders to address this. If you believe that any wild assertions or obfuscation of valid information has been made, this can be discussed in the Talk page of the main article, however the article is well-sourced and meets WP:V. I do not believe that the censorship of controversial topics is the way forward. Thanks. --Kioj156 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am puzzled and disappointed by the selective nature in which some editors are choosing to interpret sources, the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe academic study writes: "The controversy related to GLCSE can be resolved through the availability of authoritative data on the identity of the offenders. In order to argue for this we examined over 2,000 press reports on GLCSE prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence. A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE in an area. The proportion of the local population of Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin." It details a list of local authorities analysed in the study (in page 6) so supporting news articles have been provided to support its analysis. The names of other towns and cities has been provided as the HoL document makes the claim that there are 73 towns and cities affected.
I think that your revision of this edit here as NOR shows that your own idea of censorship is perhaps misguided. "The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK." The context already is clear from each individual article, as well as the CSE in the United Kingdom article that goes into grooming as an issue, having an entire article dedicated to "muslim grooming" rather than just, "grooming" is indeed rather odd. Given your edit history, not that I enjoy red herrings either, your do seem to have a certain penchant for this topic and perhapos a need to step back is needed. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused. I am not @Celjski Grad. You may believe it to be odd, however this specific topic has been addressed by multiple political figures, Islamic community leaders and has even inspired far-right terrorist attacks. Kioj156 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my mistake! In any case, my point remains, based upon your edit history you have a certain penchant for this topic, and ethnicities in general, it is certainly odd to create a page dedicated to "muslim grooming" then include groups that are clearly not "muslim". While simultaneously ignoring the "grooming" section in the CSE article to focus entirely on the ethnicitiy of some of the alleged perpatrators. Padding out the exsiting articles about the cases, or the CSE page itself, would better serve without WP:Undue Weight. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:TwinkleStarzz, that reversion came up as part of a patrol of new edits predicted to "very likely have problems" — I haven't edited the article before or since. I'd encourage you to read the first paragraph of WP:NOR to see why text such as "it does therefore did not give an accurate representation" is problematic, but since you've successfully navigated the AfD process with your very first edit this shouldn't be necessary. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The offending revisions could be deleted from public view. If the article is kept then that would be a reasonable thing to request. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:TNT. This is racist dog whistling without even an attempt at an WP:NPOV. I saw some suggestions to merge into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom on WP:NPOVN but much of this is unusable and reported with a straight face even as sourcing specifically talks about how this phrasing is racial dog-whistling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working off this version, but a breakdown of the absolutely abysmal sourcing and abuse of sourcing.
    (2) - a house of lords document. Should not be used as sourcing as it is WP:PRIMARY
    (4), (5), (22) - Primary sourcing that explicitly explains that UK media has been racializing sex abuse as a dog whistle is used in lede as citation for it was later exacerbated by the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal and the Rochdale child sex abuse case.
Commenting that high-profile cases that took place over a number of years involving a high-number of victims resulted in the phenomenon gaining more attention is not a dog whistle. It provides contextual information as to why the association emerged. - Kioj156
  • (10) - A WP:PRIMARY source used to suggest widespread occurrence of muslim gangs.
(10) is an academic study, and there is nothing to suggest that either of the two authors are primary sources.- Kioj156
  • (9), (21) - Conservative politicians decrying cancel culture for not letting them discuss Muslim grooming gangs
This is included in the lede as it is the most recent commentary from political figures, however you will find that politicians across the political spectrum have made commentary on the ethnicity/religion of perpetrators further down in the article. The statement was by the former Prime Minister whilst he was in office.- Kioj156
  • (15), (16) - research specifically discussing reason why muslim grooming gangs is overpublicized and that as white people make up much of the UK, they make up much of the grooming and child sex exploitation abusers.
The UK is a majority-white country (83%) so it should be of no surprise if most crimes are committed white people, the commentary has been on the over representation of the Asian ethnicity. - Kioj156
  • (19) - I have no clue what Spiked-Online is but searching for islam or muslim on it shows significant islamaphobia. supposedly the wikipedia page for Spiked (magazine) indicates it got sued for Bosnian genocide of muslim denialism
Stuart Waiton, the author of the article, is a criminology and sociology academic and it would be better to address the content of his arguments rather than attacking anything else. If you do not believe his figures are correct, the figures he analyses can be found in page 26 of the Home Office report. - Kioj156
  • (25), (26) - written by Julie Bindel, mostly op-eds but stated as facts. Not sure why we are specifically emphasizing that white girls were abused, especially as I cannot find it in the sourcing. The wikipedia page for Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal indicates that it is a stereotype to suggest that only white girls were abused, when the abused children were diverse.
This is not stated as a fact, the Wikipedia entry reads for sources relating to (25), (26), (27) is: "According to feminist writer Julie Bindel, fears over "being accused of racism" had suppressed coverage and reporting of the growing number of grooming gangs operating across the country. Although "gangs" had been in operation since at least the 1990s, it was only until 2007 when The Sunday Times became the first broadsheet to publish an article on the phenomenon." It is to provide commentary on when the issue was first covered by a broadsheet publication, as well as who the publisher was. - Kioj156
No claim has been made that only "white girls were abused", this Wikipedia article also discusses the abuse of Sikh girls. In the case of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency found that "The vast majority of victims were white British girls aged 11 to 18" and "The NCA inquiry, the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage".- Kioj156
  • (46) - says nothing about muslims grooming gangs, simply states abusers were muslim.
    (47) - report does not indicate ethnicity, or religion. Only that taxi drivers were abusers
    (48), (49), (50), (51) - no specific writing of race or religion, just have muslim-ish names printed out.
    actually sources 43-88 are just read outs of local crime reports. I stopped reading past 51 because of how lazy and useless this is.
    (28), (84), (114) - The Sun is deprecated,
(28) is used to provide a claim by a Sikh charity that abuse began in the 1960s, and (84) is used to provide a name of a settlement. It is not used for analysis.
  • (114) - and we are using an opinion piece as analysis, one that caused significant outrage.
(114) is not used for analysis. It is used to provide a direct quotation of the specific words used by the Labour MP and the subsequent backlash she received. This line of thought also applies to the opinion pieces written by other politicians.
  • This is after 30 minutes of tearing through sourcing. Is there a way to have some neutral version of this article up? Maybe. Is child sex exploitation by desi men a worthy topic to consider? Including by considering criticism of it as racialized dog whistling? Yes. But as is, this article is entirely racist BUNK not even worth keeping a history of, and should be wiped from wikipedia.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I keep looking through and tearing apart this article? Yeah. Not worth my time. Someone else can throw their lot at it if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative to deletion - Revert to this version [9], and rename article to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:I prefer this option actually. I've reverted to last good version. There is probably a sex abuse issue in the UK desi community, and some research indicates it could be due to lack of tools and social support to Desi women. There is also probably a POV article when we uncritically misuse sourcing to allege every other UK desi guy is a sex abuser. I think we can start to rework sourcing from previous bad version eventually back into this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth incorprating into the CSE page under localised grooming, not having a standalone article that as you've correctly pointed out will be subject to rife POV edits and problems, keeping it all on one page where the subject can be discussed with full context is much more worth it than a singular article that we know will historically be problematic with certain editos - whether now or in the future. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert asap to the last good version[[10]]. WP is not a soapbox for moral panic mongering. Subsequently we can talk about WP:SIGCOV for the moral panic and the best title to present it in case it passes WP:N. –07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)
  • Delete, per Hydrangeans' comments above, with particular regard to the academic source cited therein.[11] Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of moral panics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clear case for WP:TNT. The problem with this page is that, as Hydrangeans has demonstrated, the encyclopaedic subject of this subject is framed quite differently, and as long as this article persists in this format and with this framing and page history, editors will be fighting a losing battle against a media-fuelled narrative of moral panic. That is to say, the existence of a page about a thing implies that the thing is itself a subject. It isn't. The subject is moral panic, racism, islamophobia and the persistence of media led narratives. This should probably be mentioned in appropriate articles (several of them, so no redirect makes sense - and a redirect is harmful). Although it should be mentioned in appropriate places, there is no case for an article itself, which would always look like a war zone. TNT is not enough. Needs C4. Maybe a nuke. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I was going to vote keep, until I saw what a POV mess this is. It needs so much work it might be better to scrap it and start from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has been derailed from the original topic by POV edits. Or at the very least revert to the last good version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1231313707 and additionaly revert the article name to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" or similar memphisto 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem then is that because this coverage came from "generally reliable" newspapers like The Times, there will inevitably be people who will argue that we have to present this "Muslim grooming gang" coverage as a mainstream perspective that should be presented as equally legitimate to the very critical academic coverage. This topic in my opinion is already briefly but adequately covered at Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe it's worth noting that two currently-cited academic articles use the phrase "Muslim grooming gangs" in their titles. Based on that alone, I'd argue that the topic is notable. However, as others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to move the page to something like 'Muslim grooming gangs moral panic in the UK' to indicate this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and well said, it was a frustrating topic to research with all the racist nonsense getting in the way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significa liberdade: "this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering". Indeed. This is what I'd hoped would be addressed with the proposed title of "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" - to say that there is a notable topic here, but it is the discourse itself, not a specific group of people. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a phenomenon that needs an article. There is vast evidence of it and it is a major thing in the UK. It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith (nobody is saying, incidentally, that they were motivated by that faith). Denial of this is sticking one's head in the sand. However, as I said at the RM, renaming it to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as it stood was racist dogwhistling, and many of the sources cited (and originally misused) all either talk about how the media does ridiculous amounts of attention on the ethnicities especially to suggest brown male on white girl violence, that statistics suggest that vast majority of abusers in UK are still white and sources otherwise were often politically motivated, or that a lack of resources for brown desi girls caused issues with sexual assault.
    I propose renaming it to Grooming gangs moral panic in the United Kingdom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Do you have a source for that? That looks like a media narrative. Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford all fit that profile, but not the Camborne gang, nor the Glasgow one, nor whatever the heck you call this one [12], and countless more. Stats do not bear out the media narrative. There is no subject here, except the subject of media induced moral panic based on after the fact correlation of selected cases, and studied ignorance of the remainder. By having a page we lend credence to the false narrative. An encyclopaedic article needs to focus on the failings that got us here, and not perpetrate those same failings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like a media narrative. So, now Wikipedia rejects media sources like the BBC which have always been held to be reliable? That's a new one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black. BBC: [13]

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article." this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Incorporating it into the existing CSE article on Grooming is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and others here that have commented. The exisiting individual articles on each case goes into more than enough detail and wouldn't serve as a hub for malicious POV edits like the original did. Not to mention that no one has created any articles on the various "white" grooming gang cases, only a certain type make the wiki - that itself is perhaps a problem. In any case, renaming it to a moral panic - which it is, is a secondary option to incorporating it. Having a standalone article would need to be consistently monitored to stop those POV racist edits and is perhaps more work than worth. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. As I said, it can be renamed to simple Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, or didn't you bother reading what I actually wrote before jumping to incorrect conclusions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you say "It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" when the article actually says that is false [14] [15]. When someone commenting on an article where the information is right in front of them actually states the opposite, it is unsurprising that the intellectually challenged who took part in the recent riots believe it as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. " That's not what I did. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Yup, that's exactly what you did! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, saying you're using language that racists use, doesn't mean that you are a racist. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a racist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read things more carefully! Try not to accuse *me* of anything in the meantime as you just did! TwinkleStarzz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, just responding to User:Sirfurboy's point above: the question was Do you have a source for that?, and the answer is yes: whether or not Necrothesp does, I do. It's in the academic source I linked above. To quote it exactly:

...Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE) identified to date, relative to the general population.

As always, the context is important. The title of that paper is Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, which rather gives away its central thesis; it doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position. I invite you to read it in full here.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) I've reflected on this again and I really like Bluethricecreamman's wording, "moral panic". That's a pithy and laser accurate term for what we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its what the article and title originally was before all the pov edits and the RM move. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't; it was "South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic". The panic was there, but the moral panic is, as far as I can see, all yours.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Actually, that isn't a source for what Sirfurboy was asking. Necrothesp didn't say Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, he said It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith, which is false. And I'm going to say it again - that's two obviously intelligent people who are befuddled by this article, so it's no surprise it's become a racist trope for the hard of thinking, is it? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's got an academic source too, though. Let me quote it:

we examined over 2,000 press reports on [Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders] prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence.

Source is here. The issue is with the extreme specific-ness of the offence: "Group localized CSE offenders".—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position is indeed correct. The source I requested was for the statement: It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. That is wrong, and the fact that an editor and admin with the experience and intelligence of Necrothesp can make such a statement demonstrates the pernicious nature of media narratives, and the danger of a page that leans into them. From the conclusions of that paper:

The image of the Asian groomer has proved a seductive and enduring one, yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

And lest I be accused of cutting that of where it suits me, I note that it does go on to say that Asians are the second-largest racial group among suspects of various forms of CSE in two major national studies, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population. (my emphasis). That "various forms" is a gotcha. If we narrow the parameters then yes, the group is proportionally over-represented, but that is not at all the same thing as the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly this: if you narrow the parameters in an extremely specific way, you find that a certain kind of CSE in the UK is mainly perpetrated by South Asian Muslims. But if you use other parameters that isn't true.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population for that very narrow form (and law of small numbers now applies). If you narrow the parameters any further, you are consciously selecting for the result you wish to find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a much better source than the unpublished preprint you quoted from above:

A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White. [16]

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic and seemingly ongoing/current cultural situation in the UK. As Kioj156, Vulpes and others state, it is well sourced, cited and beyond contention. The topic merits it's own page, it does seem a tad like censorship of a controversial topic, not what an encyclopaedia should be aiming for.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor, just because it is "sourced" does not mean it is actual quality. Nor is it particularly historic given grooming for sexual purposes of children, even as groups, has existed for centuries. I would personally also contest "current/ongoing" given the majority of articles are 2014/2015. Not to mention the statistics quoted being plainly false in the original article and the other egregious issues others have pointed out earlier on this page. Namely Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite. While the topic itself may warrant a page - the "moral panic" being the best example = the original article was wholly unfit to be on the wiki. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove articles. The topic exists and is clearly notable. I would, however, support moving it to "Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom", since that would provide the same content and presumably ruffle people's jimmies less. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single argument has been IDONTLIKEIT, and citing that is ad hominem. The argument is that it is not a thing.

yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "UK grooming gangs moral panic" or something similar. Naming the country it took place in is neutral, unlike alleging that it was unique to one particular religion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is certainly notable given the abundance of reliable sources covering it (see comments by Significa liberdade, Vulpes). I don't think the sources support renaming it to moral panic, this is what the Independent says “Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Alaexis¿question? 08:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. This has already been addressed within this very page - it is a meaningless statement without context. I believe you to be misrepresenting Significa's comments also, or at least misunderstanding them. Academic sources are reliable, but the original article was incredinly poorly sourced. The "moral panic" angle is entirely justified in my opinion. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that it is "a meaningless statement without context" does not logically follow from what you quoted. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does, as other comments point out, without context it is an entirely meaningless statement where the conclusion can be obtained by obfuscating and careful manipulation of statistics and data. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide reliable sources stating that any statistics or data have been "obfuscated or carefully manipulated"? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can read this very page for how that has occurred further up. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Which seems to me to be a delete argument. If we have a page on the thing, we say the thing exists. Unless we have a page on the thing and say in the first sentence it doesn't exist. The page on this subject goes beyond the evidence, simply by existing as framed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not go by whether we are sure or unsure about one thing or another, nor is its policy that we need to claim that "something doesn't exist" at the beginning of an article if we're unsure about it. It goes by what reliable third party sources and others such as academic sources say, of which there are plenty on this topic, making it notable. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable secondary sources say this is a media constructed narrative, and that the narrative of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. What secondary sources are you reading? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not have articles that identify a horrific crime with a religious faith, just as we'd never have an article titled "Jewish killers in Gaza". Such an article would be blatantly anti-semitic, just as the article about alleged "Muslim" child abuse is blatantly Islamophobic. NightHeron (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has various articles doing just that (such as the articles on "Islam and domestic violence" or "Christian terrorism.") There is also no policy Wikipedia is based on in line with what you said. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That whataboutism argument is not convincing here, because those titles are not nearly as inflammatory. Right wingers and white supremacists have a deliberate (and often successful) strategy of getting political advantage by inflaming Islamophobia. There's nothing similar with "Christianityphobia". NightHeron (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only as per the various other arguments made already (well-sourced, highly publicized in reliable sources) but also because it's hard to see good arguments being brought forth for deletion so far, rather anti-policy arguments using words like "offensive" (ignoring that WP's policy explicitly states that articles are allowed to be "offensive") and studies being brought up and misread that further provide reason to keep the article. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" is doing an awful lot of lifting in a lot of these replies, despite already being pointed out by Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite that it is in fact far from "well sourced." No one has argued that it should be removed for being "offensive" either. Blatant red herring. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is false and strangely accusatory. It is important to always assume other editors are acting in good faith, unless an editor clearly shows behaviour that suggests otherwise. Regarding your points, one editors' entire argument has been "This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page." The arguments about the sources don't check out, since there is a large amount of reliable sources being used. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It blatantly isn't false, and your reply is unfortunately transparently projecting. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The version nominated for deletion was awful but the version we have now is OK. We should have an article about this because it covers a prominent and perennial allegation made by racists, which has received significant coverage and which people will want to look it up here to find out what the deal really is. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also wondering whether the article should be renamed in a similar manner to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory? Possibly as "moral panic" rather than "conspiracy theory", unless there are sufficient sources to support "conspiracy theory". --DanielRigal (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as it was before it was very recently emasculated was well written and well sourced. And as the phenomenon is well known in Britain, and appears to be ongoing, it’s obviously notable. The phenomenon is also horrific, the implications stark, but none of that should be given any consideration as to whether an article about it should be allowed to exist. Minimising and belittling the subject, however, by describing it as a moral panic and eliminating any content which describes the phenomenon that existed and probably continues to, is very sad. As it says in the version which existed before it’s emasculation, "In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that victims of such gangs have been ignored because of "political correctness" and cultural sensitivity." The current article appears to reflect that. There is no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific and, further, looking at the recent editing, it is clear that there is no chance of getting back to the well written, well sourced and deserving article that there was. I'd like to congratulate Kioj156 for his valiant efforts in that regard, and commiserate with him for the eventual result. Boscaswell talk 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying that if we can't promote the racist and conspiratorial aspects of this subject then you would rather we deleted the article and did not cover it at all? Let's be clear about why proponents of this moral panic call it "Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" and not just "Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom". It is not only Islamophobia, although obviously that is a big part of it. It is also intended to shift people's anger about child grooming exclusively onto Muslim/Asian sex offenders, taking focus away from other sex offenders, so that other sex offenders can continue grooming children with less scrutiny. It is clear enough when you look at who promotes this moral panic the loudest. The far-right is up to its eyeballs in convicted sex offenders and it needs you to think that all sex offenders are brown to stop you realising how many of them are white. (This is also the reason why they promote anti-LGBT panics. If people are distracted worrying about drag queens then they are not paying as much attention to the real dangers to children.) Of course, we can't set the world to rights here on Wikipedia, but what we can and should do is provide accurate coverage of these issues so that people who want to know the truth can find it easily. This article is doing exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. Given that it is only a couple of days since I had to redact a nasty bit of racism by the same editor here [17] I do wonder if we have a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like there is any CTOP restriction on UK politics. The closest is WP:NORACISTS, which is just an essay. Anyways, it seems the system is working well when bad edits seem to be caught out and reverted, right? The UK Riots definitely raised the temperature for a bit. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need a CTOP restriction if people are simply violating community norms. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have WP:NOTHERE which, while it may be "only an essay", I sometimes see given as a reason for sanctions. Maybe this discussion should be moved elsewhere, however, as it's rather off-topic? Daveosaurus (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed almost entirely from the version that was nominated for deletion and which Hydrangeans was commenting on. That version was indeed regurgitating the moral panic to a significant and unacceptable degree, and I would also have !voted to delete it if that was all we had. What we have now is sober coverage of the moral panic which serves to inform our readers of what lies lie behind the loaded phrase that is the article's title. Maybe the article needs renaming? Maybe the bad version should be deleted from the article's public history? Maybe there is other work still to do? Nonetheless, I think that the, initially valid, concerns about endorsing and sensationalising the panic have been addressed successfully and that the article is now a net positive for Wikipedia and for the world. This AfD will have encouraged more good editors to add it to their watchlists. Will racists try to hijack the article in the future? Probably. That's something that they try do to a lot of articles, but we are better placed to detect and revert them next time without the fuss of another AfD. Assuming that the article is kept, I see this AfD as a good example of an undertaking that has "failed successfully". --DanielRigal (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears someone attempted to revert a portion of the changes here, attempting to argue that the talk page (with three folks cross-chatting), provided consensus.. I suppose what I would like to see from this AfD is an OK from closer on the WP:TNT we basically already did when we reverted back to when the page was originally just about a moral panic. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
I fear that this topic will undoubtedly attract the plethora of bad faith editors (some even experienced editors no less) as you've already pointed out and found with the recent attempted reverts. I support your WP:TNT.TwinkleStarzz (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Libs of TikTok page, and various other pages that are the obsession of far-right editors on here regularly has back and forths on the page. As long as there is someone watching the page, it's unlikely they can fully butcher the subject as they did here originally before the massive revert. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, remove mention of "moral panic" as this only exists in one source. Possibly revert some of the changes made since this AfD started. I'd support another RM if needed, as I think the previous one was closed prematurely (I started it). I've come around to the reasoning in the !vote from Necrothesp above, and think Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. Core reason behind my !vote: Grooming gangs in the UK exist, and there has been significant coverage of questions about their members' race/religion/ethnicity (just the first three examples I could find: BBC, Sky, Guardian. Wikipedia can neutrally report that this coverage exists without either endorsing or dismissing it, but mention reliable sources that do endorse or dismiss it. I think WP:TNT is avoiding the subject, rather than a necessary step for an article that can't be improved. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"remove mention of "moral panic" as this only exists in one source."
1) [18] is about scapegoating of muslim men and uses moral panic terminology
2) [19] describes grooming as a "dubious category", "claims of a uniquely racial crime threat are ill founded", "current fixation with grooming and ‘Asian sex gangs’ are examined and shown to further a political agendum and legitimise thinly veiled racism,"
3) [20] describes obsession with race as creation of new Folk devil in the media
4) [21] - a conservative government dominated office is forced to admit they have no proof of dinstinctly Asian grooming groups, and that white men still make up most of the grooming claims. "existing evidence does not prove a link to ethnicity"
5) [22] NSPCC, a premier child safety org in the UK working on child exploitation dismisses claims of Grooming gangs by conservative politicians as "misinformation, racism and division.”
I am happy to think of other ways to discuss this on Talk Page when this AfD ends. Maybe Muslim grooming gang myth? Muslim grooming gang conspiracy theory?
Grooming gangs in the UK exist
"grooming gang" material should go to Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. No doubt it exists, thats why there is already an article sub-section that appropriately deals with it.
there has been significant coverage of questions about their members' race/religion/ethnicity
1) BBC - "it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending"
2) Sky - discusses a politician and the immense backlash from multiple advocacy groups, (Muslim groups and many non-Muslim groups) against what they describe as "far-right" advocacy
3) Guardian more info dismissing the theory
Wikipedia can neutrally report that this coverage exists without either endorsing or dismissing it
Wikipedia should reflect what reporting and useful analyses suggest, that it is a WP:FRINGE theory and to attempt to suggest that the wide range of orgs and stats that debunk it are somehow biased is WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia should reflect what reporting and useful analyses suggest, that it is a WP:FRINGE theory" - I entirely agree with you. It is a theory that has been widely discussed, and it has been shown that there is little evidence for it. Because the theory has been widely discussed, there should be a page on the debunked theory (whether or not "theory" is the correct word), referencing things like the BBC/Sky/Guardian article, and the points from them that you make above. Forgive me if this is too flippant, but in the same way we have an article on Flat Earth.
Your analysis above of sources shows one that uses the term "moral panic". This is not enough to make this nomenclature the main thrust of the article (thought it warrants a mention). The fact that I'm saying "moral panic" is not the correct and primary way for this to be characterised does not mean the article should do anything that show the facts as you've outlined in your response to me above. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My phrasing above "without dismissing it" was a poor choice of words. I basically mean "without TNT-ing all mention of the theory". We should be clear it is not fact. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at least rename. Focusing on a specific religion to have an article on (while there isn't a main article Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom) is absurd when all studies have found that they aren't over-represented in the actual abuser statistics. Having this specific article as an "encyclopedic" topic only serves to give the impression that "Muslim grooming gangs" are actually a specific happening, rather than a product of the media over-focusing on a specific religion. If we want to critically discuss the phenomenon of their over-representation in media, the title should very much not make it appear to be an objective fact. A title mentioning "moral panic" or at least "allegations" would be a lot more neutral, and fit better with the actual content of the article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

[edit]
Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (edit | 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)

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan(🗣️|📝) 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvilxFish's argument. Abo Yemen✉ 09:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvilxFish. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

[edit]
Islamic Commercial Law (edit | 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 added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:
    • whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)
    • how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)
    • the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)
    • whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)
    • how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)
    • whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)
    Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion, between two experienced, well-intentioned editors is about as No Consensus as you can get. More participation here would help but I'm not sure if the subject area is too niche to draw in other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion



Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Categories

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam&oldid=1243565035"