Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scholars of Muslim World


 * 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) 05:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Scholars of Muslim World

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible merge into List of contemporary Muslim scholars of Islam? Otherwise an unreferenced page lacking sufficient content to stand on its own. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is, frankly, a mess. It's titled like an essay and the contents demonstrate a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia practices and markup. It definitely doesn't warrant a merge to a list about contemporary scholars of Islam, because all three (mostly misspelled) entries in the fragmentary list are scholars of the Islamic Golden Age: Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi, Jabir ibn Hayyan, and Avicenna. There's no article that would benefit from what content is here (which is honestly just that list of three people), and the title is idiosyncratic enough to be an unlikely search term warranting no redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. very poor for a wikipedia article and serves no purpose to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimsae04 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Squeamish. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No good purpose will come of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article really doesn't seem to have a point. We have a list and several categories that cover the same information, rendering this non-article too redundant even for a merge. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 13 October 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.