Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim astronauts


 * 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. Rough consensus is that this particular list covers a notable intersection, although improved sourcing is strongly encouraged. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Muslim astronauts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

delete as per previous discussion and WP:OCAT. article is an orphan and not extended since 2007. Nageh (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see where this could be a good topic for an article, but it has no sourcing, and no context whatsoever. As with Christian astronauts who have reported experiencing an epiphany of some sort while in orbit, I would expect that some of the persons on the list have described similar experiences to their fellow Muslims upon returning to Earth.  In addition, space travel would require some accommodations for persons practicing any religion, whether it's an alteration of diet, routines on a particular day, communication with a chaplain, or facing in a specific direction during prayer (one's orientation toward Mecca would be constantly changing while in orbit).  Not a keeper at the moment, but this could be so much more than a list.  Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These seem interesting ideas, and if added would enhance the article significantly. However, at the same time, I am wondering whether a section on religious aspects in space traveling would not be better added under a sociological issues section in an article like Human spaceflight. Nageh (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment see also Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_27 ... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Muslim astronaut (or somesuch... Moslem cosmonaut, Islamic spacetraveller, Mohammeddin spationaut, ...) and make it into an article instead of a list. It can cover where to point to when praying in orbit, and when to pray, since you orbit faster than an Earthly rotation, meaning a solar day is your orbital period... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Moslem cosmonaut" could be called a "Mos-manaut" maybe. Mandsford (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete It has no Ref's and it links to 2 pages. This topic could be covered in one of the many other lists. I wouldn't be opposed if the list was expanded upon and some ref's were included. Stuff like how offten they preyed, any special diets they had and stuff like that could be included. In its current state, the list isn't that great, and I question if it even meats WP:Stub criteria.-- Navy Blue84  13:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment it would need to be renamed to cover topics that are not appropriate for a list article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't insist on such detail for any of the comparable lists. Shimgray | talk | 11:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit of a trivial list to me, but it's doing no harm. We have several lists of astronauts from specific nationalities, which is reasonable enough, and then others - see, eg, List of Muslim astronauts, List of Jewish astronauts, List of Asian astronauts and List of Hispanic astronauts. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with any of these, and certainly no specific reason we should keep those and drop the Muslim list. If any of our "list of X astronauts" could be said to have a problem, it'd be List of African-American astronauts, the first member of which isn't... Shimgray | talk | 11:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favor of any of these lists. Creating categorizations based on ethnicity or religion gets a somewhat discriminatory taste, with the result that there will be a list for any ethnicity or religion in the end. Why is the people's ethnicity or religion so notable that it does not suffice them to show up in any of the Lists of astronauts? Nageh (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose a merged list List of astronauts by ethnicity, citizenship, religion could be created, which would do these properties, while the other lists have other properties, and thus we do not get overloaded by too many properties on a list. 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather propose a single merged List of astronauts with a single sortable list including order(time)/nationality(flag)/name/mission(s)/comment columns, similar to List of spacewalkers. I don't see why we need ethnicity or religion in there. Independently, and as said before, an article or an article extension covering religious aspects is welcome! Nageh (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For a lot of people, ethnicity and/or religion are a matter of pride, rather than something that must never be mentioned. Mandsford (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue that pride about your ethnicity is nationalistic thinking but I won't follow this discussion here. Instead, I argue that it is simply not notable to mention ethnicity or religion in those lists. Hey, why not add these aspects to List of NFL champions for example, or create separate lists of these? ;) Nageh (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that I think it's trivial to mention it on "centralised" lists like our hypothetical complete List of astronauts. This doesn't make it automatically beneath our notice, though; it still seems reasonable to mention it on single, specifically focused lists like this one, or any of the wide range of other pages in Category:Lists of astronauts. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem with splitting up lists, or presenting shorter detailed lists. My issue with the list at hand (and similar others) is that I don't consider ethnicity or religion of notability enough to warrant separation. (But I would love to see an article like Islam and Space Travel or similar addressing the religious aspects Islam has to consider in space travel.) Nageh (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - WP is not for random lists--SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson !vote by blocked sockpuppet struck by   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I am far from convinced that this is not worthy of inclusion. And the article is now sourced. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: ... and would you care to state a policy ground upon which to retain? (Something that's absent in a surprising number of the comments above, which seem to be a heap of WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM arguments.) For my part, I don't see any references - do we know for a fact that all of these fellows are Muslim? - nor are such religious-based profession lists currently desirable.   Ravenswing  21:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, but many of the articles seem to have references saying that the subject is a Muslim, so this ought not to be too hard. Any that can't be sourced can of course be removed. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep a list obviously capable of expansion.  But Ravenswing is right that for such lists, refs. are needed.  DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The whole thing is now sourced, mostly to an IslamOnline publication that appears to me to be perfectly reliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment From my POV as the AfD nominator there are two aspects that justify deletion to me.
 * 1) Non-notable intersection by religion. While I'm personally not excited about this seemingly elitist motivation behind creating separate lists based on religion or ethnicity, I must admit that his is popular in Wikipedia, as examplified by Lists of Jews. The one intent of my AfD nomination was to find out whether people want to accept such lists in general or whether they should be deprecated.
 * 2) Article is a stub and an orphan for more than two years now. Combined with above issue, this motivated AfD nomination to me. So I think if people accept lists based on non-notable intersection with religion and think that the article is doing no harm, then we should keep the article, otherwise we should delete it. Nageh (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment renaming it to Muslim astronaut and covering the religious aspects that have to be dealt with (such as when to pray) would make it a better article... 76.66.192.73 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator correctly pointed out how this type of article is not appropriate, as per Wikipedia policy. Warrah (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I also would like to get rid of the categorizations based on ethnicity or religion, but Wikipedia is a also a reflection of our fragmented  society. The list is sourced and the potential for expansion is there just like the  List of Jewish astronauts (Good luck deleting that page). --Jmundo (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - changed my mind, agree, needs sourcing but otherwise a keep. Shadowjams (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The only objection I had to it was that it was not sourced. I hope that this (and the other one about Jewish astronauts) will continue to be expanded, in that religious customs have been carried into orbit and modified by Moslems, Jews, Christians, etc.  I'm inferring that some people oppose having an astronaut's ethnic background being mentioned anywhere, whether as a column on a table of all astronauts or in fragmented articles.   Mandsford (talk) 16:50, 28 March 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.