Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 500 Most Influential 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 500 Most Influential Muslims

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

There is no evidence that this list is itself notable enough for an article though as part of promotion by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre it has been mentioned in a few newspapers. It may be worth mentioning as part of another article but does not meet the WP:NLIST guidelines or WP:IINFO and is based on opinion and not independently verifiable. Raising for discussion rather than PROD as this is a contentious subject. Fæ (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom pretty much exactly. Bull dog123  18:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could nom please explain in greater detail why he/she believes it does not meet the WP:NLIST guidelines or WP:IINFO and is based on opinion and not independently verifiable?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify:
 * The list article is a mirror of the RISSC document and so cannot just refer to the same document to demonstrate notability of the members of the same list. To comply with NLIST, citations are required for names listed that are not circular.
 * The RISSC document (in the introductory section) explains that it is a subjective list. Consequently who is in or out of the list or their rank on the list is not encyclopaedic and consequently the same list of names duplicated on Wikipedia fails IINFO.
 * The existence of the list as part of the activities of the RISSC might be of encyclopaedic interest but its content fails to justify a stand-alone article. Fæ (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So I can better understand, we have various subjective lists -- such as award holder in various sports.  How do those differ?  They are subjective as well, and the rank of someone as the most valuable player in the American League this year, for example, is certainly thought of as encyclopaedic.  Is there something I'm missing?  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists of award holders are a poor comparison as the inclusion criteria is objective. Awards are not all notable, awards that support claims of notability of BLPs mostly have their own article (as they are notable in their own right) and there are criteria defined in WP:ATH explaining which awards are considered relevant. This list is not a set of award winners and is not an award, it is a subjective list and in comparison awards are based on clear criteria such as winning competitions, public votes or panel of judges applying predefined criteria. Fæ (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right -- I agree that a list of MVPs of the American League is objective. The criteria to be an MVP for 2010 in the AL is I would suggest less than objective.  It may be that this list is not notable, but I would think we would not measure that on the fact that no article exists, as that begs the question as to whether one could be created.  But rather look at the RS coverage.  I've just added a half dozen refs to the article, and more exist.  BTW -- another issue, raised in a similar list, which I think is a non-issue, but will mention due to the similarity, was whether a copyright vio exists.  I think not, but non-lawyers will disagree with me (and who knows, perhaps even a lawyer or two).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The refs you include do not, in my opinion, unambiguously show the list is notable as each article is about a notable person that is on the list rather than about the list itself. Many celebrities may have stayed in a local hotel and this may be mentioned in many newspaper articles over many years, this would still not automatically make the hotel notable as the articles were about the celebrities and the hotel only incidental. Fæ (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not concluded whether they sufficiently reflect notability. But I wonder if the example isn't a bit different than this reality -- here, we have the 500 list that is the focus of this list mentioned prominently in the very title of many of the articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a specific guideline on top ten type lists of people somewhere that may help (I just cannot remember the shortcut). In the meantime you may wish to continue improving the article and with a few more opinions this discussion itself may clarify the notability status. Fæ (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I am thinking Delete because I can't find evidence that it is notable, just numerous articles where someone mentions "so-and-so has been named one of the 500 Most Influential Muslims".  However, it is worth noting that WP:NLIST does not seem to be a good argument here, since it is actually a book, and the book is more than just a list. The first 30 pages seem to be about Islam, and many if not all the people on the list have a few pages written about them. (It is available to view/download online).  As far as notability of the book, that is another story.  From the article itself: "Every year the Royal Islamic Strategic Center reaches out to people to send their nominations of who they think is qualified to be amongst the 450 individuals." (The writers of the book apparently determine the top 50).  So it appears to be a book *about* a subjective list, which *could* still be notable, but doesn't seem to be. -- Susan118   talk  20:02, 30 November 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.