Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam In South Asia


 * 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. There is a consensus that the topic "Islam in South Asia" meets WP:N, and that the Islam in India article does not adequately cover this topic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Islam In South Asia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly WP:CFORK from numerous articles. Such CFORKs are completely unnecessary to have here. None of the sources treat this subject as the primary or important subject contrary to WP:SIGCOV. Also see past consensus at Talk:Islam in South Asia and Talk:Islam in South Asia (an RfC) where consensus was clear that this article should not be created. Lorstaking (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear WP:CFORK. I raised the issues at the talk page and was greeted with silence as the response. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Supporting 's well-argued proposal. I would like to see all the countries of South Asia covered as per WP:WEIGHT as well as expatriate communities. India should have central prominence as dictated by history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG. Scholarship treats Islam in South Asia as a stand alone subject. I see that the article author has also made use of excellent academic sources which treat the Islam in South Asia subject independently:
 * Code16 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about notability, but rather about duplication of content. Can you explain what this page will cover which is not covered in the Islam in India page (and Islam in Pakistan and Islam in Bangladesh as well)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Code16 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is not about notability, but rather about duplication of content. Can you explain what this page will cover which is not covered in the Islam in India page (and Islam in Pakistan and Islam in Bangladesh as well)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that Islam in Southeast Asia has a number of significant differences from Islam elsewhere in the world. Because the academic sources cited in the article are about that specific topic, I would think that notability as a specific topic is sufficient. TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete massively duplicates Islam in India. Clear WP:CFORK created contrary to the established consensus. Expand the main articles in place of developing duplicate articles. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or heavily condense Notability is not the question here (of course the topic is notable), but everything covered here is already treated at comparabble or greater detail in the more specialized articles linked above. This kind of duplication is not only unnecessary but actively detrimental, since changes to overlapping pages will desynchronize over time (that is one of the main reasons we try to avoid content duplication). A case could be made for a larger-scale hub page here that provides concise summaries of the regional pages but otherwise just links on. That would mean condensing it down substantially. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , have you seen the arguments below about the inadequacy of Islam in India as the article where most of this information is covered? Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. By now this seems to have moved into more specialist arguments than I'm conversant with, some quite convincing, and I can't really consider this an informed !vote anymore. Striking for now; I suspect there are now better contributions in this discussion on which to base a conclusion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Those using the "its a duplication" argument are not making much sense. Content in many articles will overlap, for example Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and Bangladesh Liberation War (same subject but different facets, as is the case here).


 * We already have a precedent of articles covering Islam by region i.e. Islam in Europe, Islam in Central Asia and Islam in Southeast Asia despite also having articles on Islam in these regions' individual countries i.e. Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovinia, Islam in Tajikistan and Islam in Thailand etc. So content overlaps will be inevitable.


 * The political history of the Islam in India article is mainly empty], so the claim of duplication is baseless.


 * Compare the difference between the sections on Mughal rule in both articles,, on its disintegration and the post-Mughal political history, and the Delhi Sultanate. Clearly, the new article is much better than the old one.


 * The rest of the Islam in India article is full of WP:OR and mainly low quality sources. However, this South Asia article is much better written and its bibliography shows the use and representation of high quality WP:RS.


 * It is also not suitable to write about Islamic facts & history of Pakistan and Bangladesh into the Islam in India article. For example it would be difficult to cover Richard Eaton's authoritative cross-South Asia scholarship on conversions in Punjab and Bengal (where most of the subcontinent's Muslims have always lived) in the Islam in India article because most Punjabi and Bengali Muslims today are no longer Indian, they are Pakistani and Bangladeshi.  This article's section on Conversions solves this problem.


 * In short this South Asia article enables editors to write about the regional Islam (in all 3 nations together, both pre-1947 and post-1947). This is how several encyclopaedic articles in normal paper and online encyclopaedias already cover Islam in South Asia. i.e.  FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is never a good argument in deletion discussions.
 * If the Islam in India article is poor in some respects, please by all means improve it. That is a not a reason to go and create a new article.
 * What is being called "South Asia" (barring Afghanistan and Sri Lanka) was called "India" till 1947. And, all its history will be necessarily covered in Islam in India article. This weakens your argument that this new article is needed to cover all 3 nations together. They are covered together till 1947. If you need such an article for post-1947, please provide sources cover the topic in such a manner. Also, please explain how South Asia is made of "3 nations". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually WP:OSE reads "comparisons...may form part of a cogent argument" and also "In consideration of precedent ...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established...may provide extremely important insight...whether...article should be on Wikipedia." So yeah, WP:OSE can't be dismissed as an argument here.
 * I am glad you have accepted that the Islam in India article is in a shabby state. Since that is the case the question of "duplication" does not arise because there is no duplicated content to begin with. So please do not use the duplication argument any more.
 * Sorry, I should have said 7 nations, not the 3 main ones, which are still the scholars' focus. Scholarship has produced numerous works on Islam in South Asia (indeed academia around the world now even favours "South Asia" over "India" anyway). To represent academia, we must allow for a regional coverage.


 * In short, everyone here agrees on the notability of the subject. Still, I would be interested to know how you plan to bypass all the academic material which covers Islam and its political history regionally? The only other argument against this article has been about duplication, but that issue has been shown to be non-existent with the content-free status of other articles. The end result is that we are left with no valid objection to this article's existence (nationalist objections based on "South Asia is India" are invalid reasons). FreeKashmiri (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CFORK It is ideal not to create articles that are already noted in other separate articles. No attempt has made to gain consensus as well. Capankajsmilyo(Talk 00:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not a concern here but if we actually need the article per WP:NOPAGE. A WP:CFORK such as this has should not be given any different treatment. Orientls (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm in the unusual position of disagreeing with : the entirety of south Asia has not been called "India" for very long, relative to the history examined in this article: Afghanistan, in particular, is crucial to the understanding of the history of Islam in the subcontinent, as that is where multiple Muslim invasions have come through, and that is a region that was part of multiple Islamic empires based in the subcontinent. As it stands, the page might well be a CFORK, but conceptually, it isn't. South Asia has nearly a quarter of the world's people, one third of the world's Muslims, and a history of Islam that is nearly 1300 years old; far older than any of the nation-states that constitute the region today. The broad sweep of this history is far better suited to a regional article than to Islam in India; indeed, because much of the history of Islam in south Asia has to do with territory that is divided between countries today, duplication will actually be reduced, and neutrality will be better served, if this material is covered in a framing article such as this one, and Islam in India is instead reframed to examine the history of Islam in independent India (as Islam in Pakistan does). Notability isn't really in question here. In sum; the article might be in bad shape now, but it actually allows for better framing of content than we currently have. Vanamonde (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , your input is made up of multiple fallacies:
 * First of all, in CFORK-based AfD's, the content of the existing article is relevant. That content is clearly dealing with the Indian subcontinent, not the broader South Asia. There is a section on the Muslim conquest of Sindh, but no section on the Muslim conquest of Afghanisan. The After independence section covers India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, no other countries.
 * You make the point that Afghanistan is "crucial" to understanding the history of Islam in the subcontinent. Yet, the much-touted volume that has been cited here, has 34 contributed articles, but not a single one of them on Afghanistan. On the contrary, the book says "For all these reasons, the Indian Subcontinent should be thought of, not as a periphery of Islam and Muslim life, but as a center. (p. xvii) The so-called Afghans themselves are called "Persianized Turks" in the volume (p. 6). So, the influences on Indian Islam appear to be Persian and Turkic, rather than Afghan. The  article, despite being titled "South Asia to 1919", really covers the Indian subcontinent. There is a separate article on "Afghanistan to 1919".
 * You state that the history of Islam is nearly 1300 years old, far older than the modern nation-states. But throughout these 1300 years, the subcontinent was known in the entire Islamic literature as Hindustan and Al-Hind, the Persian and Arabic equivalents of "India". The term "India" itself is at least a 1000 years older than Islam, almost from the time of Alexander the Great. Why anybody should have a problem with an article called Islam in India is beyond me.
 * You claim that Islam in South Asia allows for better framing of the content. I don't see why. The Muslim political centres and the Muslim religious centres in South Asia have always been in modern day India, and continue to be so. The so-called denominations listed in the article, Deobandi, Barelvi, and Ahl-i-Hadith, were all founded in modern day India. So were the other modernist movements such as Ahmadiyya. This shunning of the "India" label seems to be an instance of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you know better than to suggest I'm doing this to eliminate labels, regardless of what the intent of others here may be. The question here is whether "Islam in India" is broad enough to cover everything that could fall under "Islam in South Asia"; and I still maintain that it isn't. The Metcalf volume you cite contains a number of references to Islam in the larger region, that would be covered by the latter title but not the former; religion in the Mughal empire is the best example. There's references to locations in Afghanistan as those of significance to the history of Islam in the subcontinent (including Samarqand, and Kabul). Most importantly, there's references to the Ghaznavid empire, whose atrocities are of course given prominence whenever the history of Islam in South Asia is discussed, but whose empire was based in Afghanistan, which by your own admission was never a part of the region known as India. So what if they are Turkic in origin? So were the Mughals (with some Mongol blood thrown in for good measure). I have a "problem" with "Islam in India" only in so far as the sources have a problem with it, and the sources are clearly referring to a larger region than has every been referred to as "India". Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete seems like a textbook case of content forking. Since "South Asia" has been referred to as "India" in both historical and pre-modern times, it just doesn't seem possible to write something different here than what already exists at the Islam in India article; and this is why the issue of duplication of content immediately comes to the fore. In any case content forking is not a solution. Bharatiya  29  17:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have to suggest that south Asia has been known as "India" in historical times? Or even in the period that this article discusses? Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the terms 'India' and 'South Asia' in the context of pre-1947 period are very often used as interchangeable terms by reliable sources (for starters, ) Studies concerning the region before 1947 refer Pakistan, Bangladesh, and sometimes Afghanistan as "India" when they are discussing about ancient to pre-modern times. This is why most of the Islam in South Asia can never be different than Islam in India. Bharatiya  29  19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "India" (or translations thereof) have been used for the region of the subcontinent beyond the Indus river, from which the name is derived. The sources used here are explicitly examining a larger region. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't change goalposts now that your original point stands refuted: You asked for evidence, which I provided to you in the form of reliable academic sources. The origin of a word does not necessarily define its meaning. Terms like "India" and "South Asia" have been often used as interchangeable terms whenever the pre-1947 period is specified, like the sources indicate, and that is the main reason why the article will largely remain same as Islam in India. Bharatiya  29  14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, good example of WP:CFORK. Such plagiarism should be dealt with in an exemplary manner always. Highly biased , defeating WP:NPOV. India is not Asia, and seems the timeline conveniently switches to highlight politically motivated dateline. Devopam (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "India is not Asia" Indeed it isn't. It isn't South Asia either. Which is a good argument to keep, not delete. Also, it isn't plagiarism to copy text within Wikipedia, when proper attribution is given. What evidence do you have that copyright was violated here? Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could not understand your interest in taking the pain to go after almost each comment above ? I don't subscribe to your ideas above for obvious reasons stated already. Devopam (talk) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename to Islam in South Asia. This is a valid topic, but broader than Islam in India (the title of which is ambiguous as to whether it means pre-partition India, albeit even that is narrower than South Asia, or the current state of India). I realise this potentially duplicates the existing Islam in India article, but one solution is to make that article focused on post-1947, with only a brief overview of the pre-1947 history, and move detailed coverage of the pre-1947 history to this article. SJK (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear WP:CFORK. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Keep There are many reasons to disallow continued use of "India" to mean South Asia. (a) South Asia includes countries such as the Maldives, which have a majority (98%) Muslim population,  or Sri Lanka, which have a minority Muslim population, which are not a part of the Indian subcontinent, but in which Islam had similar antecedents as the Indian subcontinent (b) Islam in South Asia includes discussion of the historical migrations from southern Asia of indentured labor that created Muslim minority populations in Mauritius, Trinidad, or Fiji, (c) Where does one put the Sufi orders, see Template:South Asian Muslim Saints, which played such a salient role in the establishment of Islam in South Asia?  Where, for example, does one put Baha-ud-din Zakariya of Multan (12th century) or Lal Shahbaz Qalandar of Sind (13th century) whose spiritual dominion extended from present-day Afghanistan to present-day Bangladesh (see for example, Eaton's Islam and the Bengal Frontier? (d) In which pre-existing article does on include discussion of Islam in a disputed region such as Kashmir, which from the 13th century onward, has been a part of shifting political realms, which under the Mughals, or Durrani Afghan,  extended to beyond Kabul and Qandahar? (e) the claim that "India" (in Greek or Latin) has stood for the "Indian subcontinent" much longer than there has been Islam in the region (7th century CE), does not hold, as the Hellenistic Greek or Byzantine notions of "India" referred to an indistinct land east of the Indus.  It was a large part of southern Asia to be sure, but nowhere was there awareness of an Assam (with a sizeable present-day Muslim population) or of the then densely forested regions of Central India. In how many early Western-, or even Persian, notions of India was Balochistan included? There is good reason that the former Indology departments of major western universities have been renamed "South Asian studies" departments.  It is best to trim the pre-existing articles to mainly post-1947 histories, and to put most of the pre-1947 histories in this article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Maldives and Sri Lanka are part of the Indian subcontinent. Vast majority of literature point to it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
 * The OED (Third Edition September 2009 see here, subscription required, has this definition of the subcontinent: "Indian subcontinent  n. the part of Asia south of the Himalayas which forms a peninsula extending into the Indian Ocean between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, now divided between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh."  It also has a footnote in tiny 6 pt font: "Also used with wider application to include Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The term is roughly equivalent to South Asia, esp. in the wider use, although Indian subcontinent is sometimes considered to be more of a geophysical description, and South Asia more geopolitical."  Clearly, we are not dealing with a geophysical description here.  The main definition, in any case, does not include Sri Lanka, only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Geopolitics in this region, the main bulk of it, started after 1947. This article is regarding a religion in a certain geography. Most follow an Indo-Islamic version, which is distinct from Middle Eastern version. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Allama Iqbal's Tarana-e-Milli (written 1910) or the Khilafat Movement (1920s) are notable pre-1947 counter-examples. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Serious? You used the guy who wrote Sare Jahan se Accha? And loved poetry about his Brahmin ancestry? His later life, should not be the main base of your argument. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Hindi before he left for higher studies in Europe in 1904. Tarana-e-Hindi, in vastly reduced form, in keeping with the relatively limited knowledge of Urdu in post-1947 India, has been renamed Sare Jahan se Achcha.  Very few Indians know its second verse (Ghurbat meiN hoN agar ham ...) or for matter understand that Ghurbat, in this context, means "overseas," and not "poverty." Even fewer Indians know the last couplet (Iqbal koi mahram ... dard-e-nihaN hamara).  It was a children's song in any case, written with other children's songs, such as "Parinde ki fariyad," which too outside of Urdu medium schools, no one knows in India.  Iqbal wrote Tarana-e-Milli in 1910 when he returned from Europe, and continued to advocate Pan-Islamicist views until his death.  In the defensive ideology of modern India, only his youthful effort, all written before the age of 24, is mentioned.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - In accordance with WP:CFORK and WP:NOPAGE. A stand alone article is not justified since the content has been already added in the multiple articles such as Islam in India, Islam in Pakistan and few others. History of Islam in British Asia makes sense to me for the future. AshLin (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see any solid argument by those arguing that there is a WP:CFORK. Actually there is no content on Islam in India which has been duplicated here. Danish Mehraj 13:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danish.mehraj26 (talk • contribs)
 * Note to closer: If this is going to result in a "no consensus" decision, then the article should be redirected back to the Islam in Asia article, since it was intentionally created against the consensus established multiple times on Talk:Islam in South Asia. Here we have a consensus of years not to create a WP:CFORK; hence the redirect should be preserved congruent with the dictates of the status quo. Bharatiya  29  16:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean move the article to Islam in South Asia. Of course, that is rather obvious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what Bharatiya29 means, and that's why they're quite wrong. A "no consensus" closure at AFD means an absence of consensus to remove the article. "No consensus" defaults to "keep": there would be no policy-based reason to redirect this. The page should be moved, as Kautilya3 says, in keeping with MOS; that's all. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The above keep arguments carry conviction. samee  converse  18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep with the requirement that Islam in India would then focus almost entirely on post-1945 material. Closer should fix the capitalization of the title. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Though I dislike the essay-style of it which obviously needs to be fixed, how is the largest religion in the world, in the largest subcontinent not notable? You all do realize that India is a country, not a synecdoche.Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep under the title Islam in South Asia, fixing the capitalization. While this article needs significant improvement, South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (and move to lowercase) I'm not quite sure what this is a cfork from. It's an excellently written 'History of Islam in India' and 'History of Islam in Pakistan' but mostly before either of those were countries, and this does not overlap significantly with either of those articles. This does however need to be wikified, with links to it better integrated from related pages. Reywas92Talk 21:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Much needed article for the shared history and culture among groups that are separated in different states today. Esiymbro (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While historical sources will obviously use now-archaic ways of referring to South Asia and the Indian subcontinent, India is most commonly used today to refer to the country of India. This is an appropriate title for the content, although it should be expanded to include all countries/regions that are included in South Asia, and moved to a title with the correct capitalization. signed,Rosguill talk 04:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has satisfy WP:GNG. Islam in South Asia is notable because of there are differences from other parts of world.-- PATH SLOPU (Talk) 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as appears to pass WP:GNG. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.