Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sufi texts


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Sufi texts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CSC - does not meet any of the three Criteria. Reason: it is not reasonably possible to identify all "Sufi" texts - i.e., all works written by, or attributed to, people who are or have been considered by various people as "Sufis", or who claim(ed) to be Sufis, or who are or have been named as "Sufis" after their death. List of Sufis and List of Sufi saints already list a plethora of names, most authors of numerous works. Additionally, nearly all entries seem to be based on WP:OR, with not a single source to support the list, in violation of WP:LISTVERIFY. — kashmiri  TALK  00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete largely per nom. To assist other users, I'll point to the fact that Al-Ghazali's article describes him as a scholar of Sufism, but not as a Sufi himself (a Shafi'i instead), and his appearance in the list here doesn't include his famous The Incoherence of the Philosophers, although I'll admit that's not described in its article as a Sufi text (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the fact that its author isn't likewise). In other words, there's at best an inconsistent definition of "Sufi" and the same of "Sufi text" in this list, as well as the lack of sourcing/apparent OR. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  04:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. The list is attempting a classification which is already provided, better, by the category 'Sufi literature' and its subcategories. The categories, of course, do not have to attempt to be 'complete'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The category for such texts is sufficient; a list serves no purpose, especially when it can never be exhaustive, and when sourcing can be so problematic. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2017 (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.