Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian muslims


 * 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   delete. Arguably a "no consensus", but the BLP concerns make the arguments for deletion stronger in my view. Anyone wishing to create a redirect to an appropriate article (or category) has my blessing. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Indian muslims

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This list can easily violate WP:BLP, which states that a person's religion should not be identified unless they have self-identified and it is relevant to why they are notable. However, checking that using this list is nearly impossible. Instead, we should (like with List of American Christians) redirect to the category; then each page is automatically monitored individually. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to per nom.  Salih  ( talk ) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Category:Indian Muslims. A list of all Indian Muslims would be tens of millions long and impossible to maintain with pure accuracy, even by govermental bodies, so therefore cannot be approached by Wikipedia.  A category of all wikipedia articles which share a common theme or characteristic, though, is a useful navigation tool. -Markeer 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to cat. This is too generic a topic for a list--Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is generic. Unlike the List of Hindus it is restricted to Muslims of one country-India- only.Further unlike the List of Hindus this list is restricted to the notable Muslims of Independent India that is Indian Muslims who performed notable deeds from 1947 that is about 63 years.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep however, i think it needs to be drastically restructured, as it is a potentially very long list. I would recommend it get reworked into a list like List of American Jews which is really a list of lists. Since the subject, Indian Muslims, is notable enough to have a category, it can also have a list, as long as the list provides some advantages over category (say, a descriptive line, or birthdates, like a lot of other lists provide). markeer, please note that lists like this are not for all such people, only people notable enough to have WP articles about them. its still long, but not millions. If no one wants to rework it, i can see the current content being trimmed back (there are lots of redlinks and unlinked names, so the parts that function as a directory can be removed immediately, which i WILL do if it stays).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is useful in sense that is has sub headings like sportspeople, politicians, actors etc.The category can not provide that information. The list is of notable ( not all ) muslims of independent India.There are numerous such lists on wikipedia. I do not know why the nominator has picked up on this list. Agreed that the list needs some maintenance work but that is not a reason for its deletion Shyamsunder (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I only picked this list because it came up on Recent Changes. What happened was that someone had added three red-linked names.  Now, I could easily go delete those names, as including non-notable people is a violation of WP:NOT.  But if this list didn't exist, and were a category instead, such a problem could never occur (as long as people watching new pages are paying attention).  But that doesn't solve the bigger problem.  Depending on how you interpret WP:BLP, it can be argued that we should not have people on this list unless it can be 1) verified that each person is a self-identified Muslim, and 2) their religion is directly related to why they are notable.  Now, in order for a conscientious editor, who felt this to be important, to check, s/he would have to click through each link, learn about the person, and determine whether or not the listing was relevant.  Instead, by using the category method, we can rely upon the editors of each article (who we trust are following the explicit restrictions on WP:BLP on categorization of religions and sexuality) to monitor each article individually.  Finally, I cannot actually think of any value for this list.  The standard argument for the keeping of a list is that they form a sort-of duplicate categorization method, that allows people who want to look for some information for which they don't know details.  Can anyone actually name a circumstance when they need to "look up" a list of all (except, of course, it won't be all) notable Muslims in India?  In other words, is there actually any encyclopedic value to this list; and, if there is, does that potential value outweigh the BLP concerns? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let there be such discussion on all the lists in Lists of people by belief if such discussion has not already been held in past. It is unfair to single out the one list. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was some was deleted and recategoried, and some was kept after a strict improvement in sourcing, I think all those lists should be deleted and recategorized. Secret account 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, consensus currently allows for lists like these to exist. We have to advance arguments here that this particular list should not exist. While i respect your opinion about having all of them deleted, its currently not a policy, and that question cant be addressed here. I certainly wouldnt argue that they all need to be automatically kept. id have to view them individually.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete do not recat, this article has WP:BLP concerns, we can't verify if they are really indian muslims or not without proper sourcing, which I don't see any. Secret account 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Islam in India. There are what 100million+ muslims in india a list is impractical.©Geni 22:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Is there a wikipedia policy/rule that lays down the numerical limit in sense that a community of 100+millions can not have a list but a community of 10 million or 1 million or 100,000 can have one. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect - wot Geni said. This is always going to be contentions, it is and will always remain unreferenced - and it utterly useless to boot. Get rid of it.--Scott Mac 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not sure i understand how this list is "utterly useless". it has some use, just arguably not a use for which WP is suited. and I also dont know how you can say it will always remain unreferenced. i just referenced some of it. true, its likely to remain substantially unreferenced without someone fixing it up (me, if it survives afd, and ive done this kind of cleanup before), but most of us are not nearly pure immediatists. I do accept the argument that some lists pose ongoing, sysiphean problems with blp, sourcing, etc. and there should be an ongoing debate about how to fix this issue(including consensus to remove more of them if necessary).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirecting would make sense, except for there are too many possible BLP violations to do so without violating WP:BLP NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim drastically to contain only notable and sourced entries. Content issues are never a reason to delete, since they can be dealt with editing. The list subject makes sense; the way it is currently made does not. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no sourced entries and that's a reason to delete. Secret account 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are now. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete a list with potentially millions of entries is fundamentally too broad. Better as a category, which we already have. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment can everyone agree that this should NOT be deleted due to it being a list of potentially millions of names? Thats not a valid argument. We simply dont put "notable" in article names, as its assumed that they are in an encyclopedia because they are notable. there are probably thousands of lists like this, with similar blp and sourcing issues, on WP. If the subject was utterly useless, why do we have a category for it? Leaving it as a category still causes BLP issues, as the main article on the person often doesnt make explicit their religion (though the name of course can be a giveaway if you are familiar with hindu/sikh/muslim names). If someone can find sources for 3 notable indian muslims, who are notable for their muslim identity, and keep it to just those three, we would have a valid list.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The advantage of a category is that people are added to it by placing code on the article. That means that people viewing or working on the article know that the subject has been placed there, and can assess the suitability of that. If the sourced text of the article indicates they are notable for being a Muslim, then that's fine. If not, the category tag can be removed. A list however, is more difficult. They tend to remain unsourced, and then even if sourced, the casual reviewer cannot assess whether the person is prominent as a Muslim without reading any sources provided, since there is no discussion in the text. Thus, as a matter of BLP quality control, categories are to be preferred.--Scott Mac 09:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. The lists help in tabulating the information and make it easy for lay readers. Shyamsunder (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True. But of little relevance to the discussion here - and does not overcome the problem I've outlined. In any case, there is no tabulation here, there aren't even any damn sources - nor, from experience, will there be.--Scott Mac 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * thats a really good point about how people watching an article wont automatically see the article added to a list, while they will see the code added for a category inclusion. I've never heard that argument used in a list afd. I suppose "what links here" helps, but its more tedious (but looking through the list of linked articles for the word "list" would be a work-around). I wonder if there is policy on this. I started off on WP initially opposed to the stand alone list format, but now accept it and try to improve it. to address another point brought up above, i could not find a statement at our BLP pages about how and when to list or not list a persons religion (or sexuality, or other potentially controversial personal information). Finding those statements and linking them here would help.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added sources for some of the names that stand out to me. Some of the sources show the significance of the person being a muslim, esp. when it comes to government positions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's still isn't enough sources. Secret account 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it enough sources for the people i sourced, though? I would trim out all the redlinks now (and probably some blue links as well), but i prefer to leave information in articles up for afd, only add material that helps, even if im voting to delete. hopefully people can see through the universally agreed problem data to the core of debatable material.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the context in field and time in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. The argument about eligibility is not correct: if there is justification for adding this as a category, there is justification for adding it to a list--it both cases, the religious factor must be relevant to notability. There are quite enough such people with articles here to justify this.   DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 5 September 2010 (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.