Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muwahhid Muslim


 * 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. The article is found to be original research, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Muwahhid Muslim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure WP:OR spiced up with a helping of chutzpah. There's a source saying that Muwahhid is one of the terms Wahhabis use for self-identification, but it's anyone's guess what the article is about. The text includes such blatant examples of WP:SYNTH (trying hard to assume good faith here) as this: "Since Muwahhids predominate in Sunnicentric centers of worship, some Muwahhids questioned the hadithically derived sunnah that had little to no feedback from ayahs in the Quran as well as the tendency among masjidgoers (mosquegoers) to give undue weight to non-tafsir elucidations that have no Quranically derived roots." The cited reference says: "Muwahhid 'Unitarian'; one who believes in God's unity (tawhid). Term used by Wahhabis and Druzes (among others) to describe their beliefs." Eperoton (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another egregious example: "Furthermore, their arguments against the excessive emphasization of intermediaries between mankind and God was primarily based on a fear of giving leeway to overzealous mosquegoers who might possibly exploit and manipulate less religiously grounded mosquegoers." The cited reference says: "The storytellers recounting the stories of One Thousand and One Nights to Muslim generations of the post-al-Muwahhid centuries, did instil a little oblivion in the spirit of their listeners who went to sleep, closing their eyes on the enchanting vision of a sumptuous past." (from an article by Malek Bennabi, who coined the term "post-al-Muwahhid era" in reference to the Almohads ). Other attempts of source verification also failed. Since the article was mostly written by a single editor, it is doubtful whether one can trust any of the sourcing there on an assumption of their good faith. Eperoton (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

*Move to Muwahhid (term). The term has mutiple variations of spellings because it is transliterated differently by each author. Howver I saw many search returns, but there does not seem to be a fixed definition with each author having his/her own meaning on the term. 92.10.226.159 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page covering different uses of the term already exists at The People of Monotheism and it provides a reasonable inventory, aside from the OR relating to the article under discussion. Eperoton (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge. I change my vote to merging the salvageable bits of this article to The People of Monotheism.92.10.226.159 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT Delete. It concerns me that the article is supposed to only focus on the conglomeration of non-political and primarily theological Muslim revivalist movements that grew in various intermittent periods including the early 19th century. While there may be grounds and sources for an article about the ideology of muwahhidism (including its historical versions, such as the Almohads), the current article is really a bunch of synthesised original research. Add to that the misrepresentation of sources and you got yourselves a delete. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the flag that is said to be a muwahhidist symbol, is actually the flag of the Almohad (al-muwahhid) dynasty. → More proof of OR. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best and mention elsewhere if needed as this is questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  23:17, 1 February 2016 (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.