Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darul Huda Islamic University (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I just want to note that those arguing for keep on the basis that this has survived three previous AFDs are using an invalid argument. First of all consensus can change, and secondly, in this case, it most certainly has. The first two AFDs kept on the basis that high schools and above are automatically notable. This is no longer the consensus and guidelines have since changed.

This close should not be taken as evidence that the article is without neutrality or promotional problems and does not preclude the article being entirely rewritten or stubifying. SpinningSpark 14:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Darul Huda Islamic University
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Requesting to delete and salt all articles, and block all suspected accounts. This institution is a self-styled and unaccredited university based in Kerala. A group of people, including students, alumni, staff members and paid editors who work as writers, authors, journalists in leading news agencies like The New Indian Express and Gulf Times, and news portals like TwoCircles.net, and Wikipedians, presenting an institution that does not even have a primary school as a university based on its own press releases, books, articles and self-created web profiles instead of independent evidence and they offer the kind of degrees or PGs offered by accredited universities.

Read more at Administrators' noticeboard

. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt all From what I can tell it seems like all or most of the references in the article are written by people who are connected to the academy and for the purpose of promating it. Even if that wasn't the case though the article aren't up to Wikipedia's standards anyway. For instance the article "Four Muslim students from Kerala to address Youth Conference at UN General Assembly" in the Deccan Chronicle wouldn't work for notability IMO even if there was no COI issues with the writer. Another example is that one of the articles from TwoCircles.net, "Darul Huda Islamic University" is about them opening a couple of satellite campuses. Which is extremely WP:MILL. Plus it contains a lot of PROMO puffery like "Darul Huda Islamic University is all set to spread its wings" and "off campuses will be set up apart from initiatives meant to educationally empower Muslims in these states." Neither of those quotes are written from a neutral, un-bias perspective. It's also worth noting that the title for the bhatkallys.com shares the exact same line about the academy "spreading it's wings" that is in the TwoCircles.net article. I'd be pretty surprised if the extremely similar wording was a just a coincidence. Probably the articles were written by the same COI editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have went through all the talks and discussions related to Darul Huda Islamic University. And from my findings, I don't think that the article violates any of the Wikipedia rules. The references of the article seems to be genuine.
 * The Islamic University talking about is notable by the references.
 * From the article, it's clear that, DHIU is a private Islamic University in Kerala. It has'nt termed itself as a Public University and hence doesn't need other affiliations other than that mentioned.
 * I didn't find any offence with the sources referenced with the article as mentioned above. The university events have been published on other articles also like The Hindu. I don't think it would be self-published.--Nezvm (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck as an SPI (trainee) clerk action per Sockpuppet investigations/Tinkvu (permalink). Inappropriate tag-team editing by editors with a shared COI. Editors issued only warning. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 03:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no evidence that the articles published in The Hindu and the New Indian Express, sources that are generally considered reliable, managed to evade those publications' editorial oversight and were intended as promotion by the author(s). The article may need some cleanup, but that's not an issue for AfD. Huon (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter if article in the New Indian Express is reliable or not since it's about a student magazine. Which isn't what this article is about. Otherwise, how does that article address "university" directly and in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was nominated three times before and resulted keep. A clean up might works.  O n m yw a y 22  talk 19:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you please read this in its entirety before voting? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 25,000+ madrasas in Kerala, this is one of the most prominent.


 * It's important to note that this is a Deobandi institution and Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between supporters and those opposed to the movement. Instead of getting involved in the drama, all that should concern us is focussing on reliable sourcing, remembering that AfD is not clean up and expecting a thorough BEFORE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the references you cited are trivial name drops. There needs to be more then that for them to work for notability. Especially since this isn't a university in the way the notability guidelines for schools means it. But articles with simple name drops like the ones you've provided don't work for WP:GNG either. We aren't just verifying the exitance of the place. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a misrepresentation, they're not simple name drops, they're sources which attest to (a) its prominence and (b) two of them discuss it in length; the sources establish notability under NONPROFIT. FWIW, I'm reminded of AfDs of other Deobandi institutions; precedent shows keep (Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi, Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi); while this one must be judged on its own merits, it's nevertheless useful to note the patterns. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? The last reference on your list literally just says the name of the school. To cite from the abstract of the paper that the quote in the last reference you listed, it says "his article explores how different forms of capital act in configuring power relations among differently positioned Mappila Muslim men." Which doesn't sound it has anything to do with this "university." So how exactly am I misrepresenting that reference by saying it's not about the "university" and just names drops it? Also, where do the notability guidelines say that something is notable if a reference "attests to its prominence" and what makes whoever is attesting to it's prominence an authority that is worth listening to, instead of following the notability guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Analysis of one source, is not analysis of six. You first stated that these "are trivial name drops"; but they are not, out of 25,000+ madrasas in the state of Kerala (population 34+ million), I've supplied reliable sourcing from peer-reviewed specialist publications that attests this is "one of the most prominent", "prestigious" institutions that was a pioneer of integrated Islamic education. Two of the sources are detailed examinations of the madrassa. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a reason I said "most" of your references are purely name drops in my original message. "Most" isn't all six. In the meantime, I picked one as an example. Which is fine. I don't have to summarize every single reference in obtuse detail for my point to be valid. If 4 or 5 of the references you've provided are trivial name drops then it still massively undermines the reasons you posted them and the claims your making about them showing notability. As far as your claim that the sources say it is a "prestigious" institution, only the 6th reference uses the term "prestigious" and it has to do with prestigious Sunni groups that are associated with the institution, not the "university" itself. I could see where you might have misread that sentence though. It's kind of convoluted. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood Kasim's point. It's an article about social capital and the way in which male-male networks reinforce and extend social power and assist in social mobility among Kerala's muslims.  The full quote states: "Although all Kerala Muslims are Sunnis of the Shafi madhab, nowadays the term Sunni is used to mean "traditionalist" Muslims: those who stand opposed to the organized reformists, the Mujahids and the Jama’at-e-Islami. These groups also run religious institutions like mosques and madrasas, and maintain their competence involving in various community development activities such as promoting education. As part of this, they send students from the region, irrespective of their class backgrounds, to various Islamic educational institutions associated with these organizations. Darul-Huda Islamic University at Chemmad of the EK group of Sunnis, Markazu Saqafathi Sunniyya at Karanthur of the AP group of Sunnis, Al-Jamia Al-Islamiya at Shanthapuram of the Jama’at-e-Islami, and Madeenathul-Uloom at Pulikkal of the Mujahids are considered prestigious." He's making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious and orients towards by sending students there, he is not describing the EK group, the AP group, Jama’at-e-Islami or the Mujahids as prestigious.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In general notability means "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable." If the author is "making a point that each sect has an institution it considers prestigious" and your saying this is notable because the author says it's prestigious, then your essentially creating de-facto standard where each sects institutions are de-facto notable. Simply because it's an "Islamic university." Otherwise, what makes this one remarkable and worthy of notice compared to all the other ones out there that the author says are also "prestigious", which according to them is literally all of them? Or should we just have an article on every Islamic educational institution "just because?" Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your point that some of them are mentions is made and understood. What would be helpful for this particular discussion is whether at least some are in depth. Even if two of them are WP:SIRS, other non-significant ones can be combined per WP:BASIC. hemantha (brief) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably personal preference, but I'm not a fan myself of "combing non-significant ones per WP:BASIC" or whatever. Since it just invites ref bombing of bad sources. Plus, two or three in-depth references is a pretty low bar that most things should be able to meet anyway. In the meantime, I'm more then happy to re-consider the notability of this institution if two or three in-depth references materialize. I haven't seen them myself though and I spent a good amount of time reading through the references that Goldsztajn provided. Which ones do you feel are in-depth? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Also, notice from that quote the author is saying "the sect considers the institution prestigious." Why should we care what the sects think of their own institutions when considering their notability? That would be the same as saying a business is notable because it's CEO says it is." This is a false analogy. It is an independent area expert making the statement...and there are 25,000 madrasas to choose from, but this is the presitigious one. A more apposite analogy would be in mid 20th Century USA, upper middle class WASP families regarded sending their child to Andover Academy as prestigious (probably still do).  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The analogy is perfectly apt because he's saying that the institutions that think they are prestigious, not that he thinks they are. Even if he saying they were though, the dude has only written like six articles about Islam and gender. Most of which aren't even slightly related to Madras. So in no way is he an "independent area expert." Not even in gender. Which is the main area the guy writes about. You seem to be working really hard to squeeze water out of a turnip to justify keeping the article for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Goldsztajn and these -, some local news  sources and books Hemantha (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We cannot ignore WP:SIGCOV when it comes to an educational institution. An entity does not get to ignore our sourcing requirements because it happens to be an educational institution. This type of situation is exactly why WP:NORG has been created. This organization hired a bunch of editors to spam their organization across Wikipedias in several different languages, regardless of notability requirements. And, this AfD is not an example of anti-Deobandi nationalism or whatever. This is a case of an organization gaming the system with shitty coverage and churnalism to get an article. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment What's nationalism got to do with anything related to this AfD? There's at least two sources with significant coverage in the six I provided which are from peer-reviewed academic publications.  Please actually comment on the sources provided rather than making blanket assertions about all sources in toto. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think nationalism thing has to do with this AfD because you claimed in your original "vote" that "Wikipedia has been beset with quite a degree of drama between Deobandi supporters and those opposed to the movement." Which makes it sound like your claiming the AfD, and by implication people who vote delete, are both partially being motivated by anti-Deobandi nationalist sentiment. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's clearly active currents both pro- and anti-Deobandi matters, but it has nothing to do with nationalism. Given the origins of this AfD, my comment was related to emphasising a focus on sourcing, rather than being sidetracked with speculation over other editors' intentions (perceived or otherwise). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read through all the discussions related to this and your the only that's used the term "Deobandi." No one else has. Except for me when I asked you about it and responded to your original message that mentioned them. Your clearly pro-Deobandi. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's weird to claim other people are anti-Deobandi when no one else has brought them up. Otherwise, can you point out where anyone, including (or especially) me, has said anything anti-Deobandi in this discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A good faith request that you focus on questions of notability, rather than (mistakenly) asserting my editorial intent. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want people to focus on questions of notability then your free to lead by example and do so yourself. In the meantime if your going to say that people voting in AfDs are anti-Deobandi don't be surprised when someone asks you for evidence. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: (at least weak keep): nomination has sort of given reason for notability in the nom., but it needs the sources which it essentially has. There are twp sides to this, and I lose track of who's who. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly COI issues, possibly article naming issues (outside my ability to follow). But the sum total of prior keep AFD conclusions, and the sources identified by Huon and Goldstejn, lead me to believe we could write a decent article about this institution and GNG is met. (Not all of those sources persuade me, there's many passing mentions. But there is enough there.) Martinp (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep in light of the new references and whatnot as long as the ref bombing of primary sources currently in the article and the edit waring/COI editors are all dealt with. As things currently are though I don't think there should be an article on this if COI editors are using it as a place to camp out and ref bomb with primary references. It doesn't seem that the Administrator Notice complaint has gone anywhere in the meantime either. Which doesn't speak to this turning into an actually useful, encyclopedic article anytime soon (if ever). Instead of just a mostly primary referenced, ref bombed add for the institution. So I say either the cleanup happens now or we delete the article per WP:TNT and fact that it's written as un-ambiguous advertising with almost zero chance that it won't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment All the above references further corroborate what I said earlier.


 * In the article given in the first reference, "Darul Huda Islamic Academy" is cited as an example of the tendency of some Islamic institutions in Kerala to name "College" or "Academy" instead of "Madrasa".


 * The introduction to the article given in the second reference clearly stated that it includes interviews with students of Darul Huda and Al Jamia and they added Darul Huda's old website, www.darulhuda.com, as the reference to the information given in the article.


 * In the biography of the author of the article given in the third reference, it is clearly stated that he is MUNEER ARAM KUZHIYAN (A. K. Muneer Hudawi) and that he holds a postgraduate degree in “Islamics and Contemporary Studies” from the Darul Huda Islamic University.


 * The article in the fourth reference cited a Malayalam book named "Keraleeya Muslim Charithraparisarathil" which is said to have been authored by Mahmood Hudawi Panangangara (M. H. Panangangara), an alumni of the Darul Huda, edited by Bahauddin Muhammad Nadwi (B. M. Nadvi) and published by Darul Huda Islamic University, in two places related to this subject.


 * I am learning about the 5th and 6th references. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In an AfD, the current state of the article mostly does not matter. What's under discussion is whether the subject deserves an article or not. If you have issues with Academy/University, request a move. hemantha (brief) 03:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus on this issue just a few weeks ago was not to move, see: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_17, but am in heated agreement, the contents of an article are essentially irrelevant in determining notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Reaffirm my keep striking duplicate !vote Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC) . I've been pinged above with the AFD proposer questioning the validity of the sources Huon, Goldstejn, and myself are trusting in our Keep rationale before the relist. I have only visited Kerala briefly many years ago so don't profess any great expertise of this topic or its context, and can't validate sources thoroughly. That being said, I base my "enough to keep" conclusion on The Hindu source (Huon) and Goldstejn's sources 2 and 3. Some of the criticism above of those sources says they are tainted since they are themselves by authors who (it is claimed) are too closely related with the institution, or themselves rely on primary sources. While this may well be true, we can but assume that the editorial board of The Hindu, of the Mideast Association of America, and of Cambridge University Press added an acceptable amount of independent review. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is relying on secondary sources, which in turn doubtless rely on primary sources, as is always the case. Hypothetical case example: suppose a banal social influencer's media promoters conspired to get them a presence on Wikipedia. We would challenge the COI and "deny" the article. However, if those same promoters effectively influence enough secondary sources with some independence to discuss the same influencer, it is not our job to look several layers down to gauge perstistence of COI, merely to note that notability has been achieved (however it happened) and keep an eventual article relying on them. I don't know enough about this institution, Kerala, etc. to know if this is the situation here, but that is the reason I am saying Keep after investigating (briefly) those 3 sources, irrespective of how they in turn came to be. BTW, I have discounted Goldstejn's source 1 and Huon's The Express article as passing mentions, and haven't looked at later sources on Goldstejn's list. Martinp (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: How much of this is substantial and how much is WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unclear (and yes, I read the very long noticeboard entry) is really unclear, there is a lot of agenda-driven advocacy on both sides (the article writer and the person proposing this AfD), cleanup is undoubtedly required, and lest I be accused otherwise I am not pro- or anti- anything involved. But, as always, the burden of proof is on the nominator to show that Huon and Goldsztajn's otherwise reliable sources, both journalism and scholarly, have suddenly lapsed in their reliability because there exists a group that wants to be promoted. And it must be proof, not "well, I think that's probably happening, and I don't like it." I don't see that proof here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was previously nominated for deletion 3 times and still resulted in 'Keep'. It can probably use a minor cleanup. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, but clean up the article and investigate potential COI conflicts thoroughly. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should it be kept? Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.