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 redirect‎ to Asra Nomani. Lost my original rationale in a script failure but the sourcing seems demonstrably too weak for a standalone. So much effort here to write stuff that has little engagement with policy based arguments like source analysis. Bare assertions and accusations are poor policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real evidence of notability here. The level of sourcing is junk, and a search for more doesn't turn up anything much better. It could potentially be redirected to the page of the author, Asra Nomani. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asra Nomani. The majority of references are interviews with Ms Nomani. I am happy to reconsider my !vote if additional sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle My preliminary search at google books gave me several academic references mentioning topic of "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque". For lack of time I could not read all those in detail to take a position. I wish users like you help scrutinize all those sources before taking a position.

Following are few - most likely to be academic - I suppose more search at google books and google scholar may bring out more of them.

• Black, Ann, et al. Modern Perspectives on Islamic Law. United Kingdom, Edward Elgar, 2013.
• Duderija, Adis, and Rane, Halim. Islam and Muslims in the West: Major Issues and Debates. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2018.
• Emergent Religious Pluralisms. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2019.
• Living Islam Out Loud: American Muslim Women Speak. United States, Beacon Press, 2012.
• Controversies in Contemporary Religion: Education, Law, Politics, Society, and Spirituality [3 Volumes]. United States, ABC-CLIO, 2014.
• Faith and Feminism: Ecumenical Essays. United States, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2014.
• Smith, Jane I.. Islam in America. United States, Columbia University Press, 2010.
• Religion, Spirituality and the Social Sciences: Challenging Marginalisation. United Kingdom, Policy Press, 2008.
• Amer, Sahar. What is Veiling?. United Kingdom, University of North Carolina Press, 2014.
• Nurturing Child and Adolescent Spirituality: Perspectives from the World's Religious Traditions. United Kingdom, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
• Ali, Kecia. Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence. Iran, Oneworld Publications, 2015.
• Women, Leadership and Mosques: Changes in Contemporary Islamic Authority. Netherlands, Brill, 2012.

Bookku (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Asra Nomani could not find sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: This is almost 17 year old article. Without putting any notice of notability on the article, no discussion on article talk page. WP:AFDBEFORE Point D1 expects search in Google Books. Even a cursory search in google books with the term "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque" seem to show good number of reliable academic resources. We do not find any analysis of the same on the article talk page. If merge and redirect is important why that could not be discussed in advance - or even now after a keep - at the article talk page as part of WP:AFDBEFORE is unexplained.

We wonder what searches op conducted and what care has been taken on front of WP:AFDBEFORE before bringing the article directly to AFD without any intimations to active Women's and feminist WP project talk pages?

It is understandable many people do not like some of positions of Asra Nomani - but that does not mean academia and progressive communities reject each of her position for women's rights . If at all merge and redirect is important then why not consider articles like Islamic feminism. And why not take such discussion with RFC at Talk:Islamic feminism where users aware of the topic can participate better?

Bookku (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the page is irrelevant. It is the duty of every AfD nominator to do a WP:BEFORE search, so yes, I did that, and I found little evidence of significant, non-trivial coverage. Other editors have presumably come to the same conclusion. If you think there is evidence of significant coverage, please produce the sources that you think establish this, but the list of sources above is just not that; it's just names from a simple google search. Also, I am entirely unfamiliar with Asra Nomani, and this AfD has nothing to do with anything about that subject. It is just bad, unsupported content. Please WP:AGF and do not cast aspersions by projecting imagined motivations onto other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do very well respect WP:AGF and peer wikipedians. But with all due respect ".. do a WP:BEFORE search, so yes, I did that, .." and ".. Also, I am entirely unfamiliar with Asra Nomani, .." does not seem to add up.

Though not mandatory, IMHO spirit of the WP:AFDBEFORE policy expects thought be given to merge and redirect possibilities with a discussion on article talk page along with intimation at women related project talk pages like Women in Red, there is one project for Women in religion too. For a fair dealing to the topic people need longer time to go through sources and make their mind. May be after going through sources other editors including me also come to same conclusion as op but I read sources and take my word as final and now delete with limited AFD discussion sound bit awkward in a collaborative project.

Bookku (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The subject here is not Asra Nomani - that subject is simply the best merge target as the subject most directly related to this page (as this subject's author and promoter). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I indicated is probability of more possibilities vs. just one single option this AFD banking on Wikipedia:Follow the leader seem to justify unilaterally. I suppose both of us have made our points, let us look forward to views from other enlightened editors and closer. Bookku (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is a strong article that needs more references. That is an opportunity for improvement, not for deletion. The subject passes GNG even with existing sources. With those noted above, there is no valid reason to delete it. Frankly, I don't see any justification for this AfD at all, especially without a single hint on the Talk. IMHO, One of the (many) shortcomings of the AfD process is the fact that a nominator can come straight here without any discussion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong article ... on which plane of existence is this page that thing? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your very polite and informative reply. You quote WP:AGF when an editor disagrees with you; perhaps you should try reading WP:CIVIL, especially since this nom seems deeply rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To answer your rudely phrased question, I think the article presents the concept well. It needs work on the lede and more sources. It passes GNG, has RS in the article now, and there are (thank you, Bookku) more to allow for article growth and improvement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but the page currently barely contains any prose, just huge tracts of copy-paste quotes, and barely an inline citation, let alone a reliable source, in sight. The page is shoddy in the extreme, and to comment a such is not uncivil - incivility it something one directs at a person, not a page. The same cannot be said for your response, which lets fly the accusation of rudeness. If you would like a more constructive feedback then I would note that if you think this is a "strong article", well, you need to read some guidelines, pretty much any guidelines, because thinking this is good content, in its present state, is a WP:CIR issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I suggest, let us not digress further. We have expressed ourselves and need not cross each of comment of other disagreeing users since that can amount to WP:BLUDGEON.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a lack of consensus and no review of sources brought up in this discussion. I also wonder if the external links in the article have been examined to see if they could be included as sources. It would also be helpful if, in addition to the deletion sorting, relevant WikiProjects were informed about this discussion by the nominator or any participant. Also, please stop with the sniping or CIR quips, it's not only not civil but if you participate in many AFD discussions, you're going to run into each other again and you don't want current disagreements to follow you into future AFD discussions. Focus on the article, not each other. If you are unhappy with the process of deletion discussions, take it to a policy talk page or the Village Pump.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Asra Nomani. Following @Liz's suggestion I looked at most of the external links. Some were dead. One or two didn't discuss the bill of rights. A few were audio (TL;DL - too long, didn't listen). The ones that discuss the bill of rights always mixed it together with her decision to lead prayer at the mosque, and her overall activism. I moved a bit into footnotes, but that doesn't amount to much.

Note that I didn't do a WP:BEFORE type search - if there's more out there it should be added to the article. But based on the current sourcing, no evidence of lasting impact from the document itself. Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Oblivy, I appreciate you checking them out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I could see discussion wasn't heading in a productive direction, and your relisting comment read a bit like like a cry for help! Oblivy (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• An optional suggestion - Drafty with Rename :

Brief: I would be okay if this article is draftified and developed further with renaming "Activism for gender equality in Mosques".

Detail: I can understand, Wikipedia culture is not as much accustomed to nuanced WP:AFDBEFORE. Anyways, I would like to bring attention to this 2004 NewYork Times article (to 2022, jstor, Piela, Anna. Mosques of Their Own. which indicates though not translated in proper movement "Activism for gender equality in Mosques" is a real and long sustained phenomena and multiple reliable academic sources cited in above discussion cover that significantly enough and consider "Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque" part thereof. Therefore I would be okay if this article is draftified and developed further with renaming "Activism for gender equality in Mosques". Similar activism is seen in other religions and Wikipedia covers that in bits and pieces but deserve proper encyclopedic coverage.

Bookku (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku your proposal for draftify>repurpose>rename seems promising, but maybe give some thought to how/if the repurposed article would present anti-reform views. Otherwise I think you may find yourself getting POV/balance/undue complaints. You could also create the article as a fresh draft but we'd lose the edit history here. Oblivy (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Thanks for your inputs. Personally I am well versed with views of most sides and usually I do take reservations from on all sides on board as covered by Reliable sources - and this topic is covered by academics so I suppose that would be easy. Where I am aware different views are there in vernacular sources I put up a template for expansion. Some WP:DR may continue but that is how Wikipedia takes shape.

If some one can suggest more neutral title that also can be considered may be some thing like "Mosque and gender roles". Usually I would prefer to retain article history by 'draftify>repurpose>rename'. Bookku (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @EronMain and BDD: since participated at the article t/p previously. Input requests also posted at WT:ISLAM, Talk:Islamic feminism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Religion, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism. Bookku (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Draftify and move to Mosque and Gender Roles or similar (Gender Roles and the Mosque?), per Booku's comments. There's good material here, but it doesn't require its own article just for the bill of rights as per my comments above. It seems Booku has a plan here, and I don't want my merge vote to get in the way.Oblivy (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Many RS have been listed above as books, but pages are missing. If there is extensive coverage in at least 3 RS (also, different time periods), I will be voting Keep, but if not, then it is either delete or merge to somewhere else. Cinadon36 13:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are plenty of sources about the topic out there, so the article should remain so that someone has the opportunity to improve and expand it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Asra Nomani. I searched for sources, and found none with coverage that justifies a standalone article; that is, there is little material to begin with, and all of it could reasonably be included in the author's biography. The age of the article is irrelevant, and the sources above do not appear to cover this topic in depth. This is not a reasonable basis for an article about gender equality in mosques, that would need to be written de novo regardless of the outcome here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.