Talk:Qadri Shattari

There's a new page at Institute of Sufi Studies, but it largely duplicates the text on the topic that's already here. Also Qadri Shattari isn't WP:TOOLONG, so there's no need for WP:SUMMARY format. So, I suggest a merge for reasons of overlap, short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose: We do keep academic stubs per WP:stub policy. Passes WP:NJournal. Qadri Shattari already has almost 2500+ words so pretty nonsensical argument for WP:Too long. Also per WP:CFORK. I think the nominator's reasoning is vague. Sumiono (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting that splitting is usually considered at 8000 (per the policy you quote), while Qadri Shattari currently has only 1261 prose words, even including the duplicated text of Institute of Sufi Studies. Please do let me know the ways in which 'overlap, short text and context' is unclear. Klbrain (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Klbrain I am not sure which tool you are using for your word count? Per the available and usually used independent word counter tools like, https://wordcounter.net/website-word-count and https://www.seoptimer.com/website-word-count/ the word count is coming to be 2500+, I acknowledge the possibility of those tools to add some sorrounding words in their measurements, but I am pretty sure that it will not be half atleast, as you claim. There is no hard and fast rule to have every article to be 8000+ words, we do have featured articles of even around 1200 words. My argument still stands as the existing Qadri Shattari is very long and already contains too many subsections even with sub heading level 3. So I am not sure about your obsession of recklessly redirecting notable articles without doing proper WP:Before?

Addressing your overlap, short text and context; your argument is nonsensical coz the institute article is a modern research initiative of the ancient 15th century order, whereas Qadri Shattari is itself a Sufi order so it fails the criteria # 1 for merging as both are two different things but not duplicate. It also fails the criteria #2&3 coz the institute article is not very short with just one or two sentences as mentioned explicitly by the criteria #3. We have enough content to the Institute article to have a valid stub ofcourse with the possibility of future expansion. Similarly if you go by #4, practically we do keep academic stubs per WP:NJOURNAL, and ISS clearly passes this based on its real world impact as its research project has been adopted by the well established international university as the part of their textbook/examination curriculum showing that thousands of multi-national students of that particular international university is reading the research project of ISS as a part of routine academic their syllabus. And per NCITE we do keep stubs on publications if Chairs of University like University of Wales and Professors of University of Pennsylvania and Osmania University are citing their research projects in their research. I will suggest you to slow down and try to learn the ropes of NPP before being too bold to get your NPP permission revoked. Thanks. Sumiono (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Klbrain#Bold_Redirects?_Slow_down_! Sumiono (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Briefly, 1261 word count; merging does not require a lack of notability, and to merge is not to delete, so WP:BEFORE is not relevant. Klbrain (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Why only prose? While merging we look to the entire complexity of the article like multiple subheadings and other complex issues. I think your arguments do not fit in any of the 5 criterias mentioned there. And yes before is very much fits and relevant here because you are using backdoor deletion by blowing away the established articles just by redirecting without any formal merge. Sumiono (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A merge is not a deletion; 'by prose' is the policy (which is hence why the prosesize tool exists). Klbrain (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose They are different things and if they were together there would be some effort to make 2 articles out of them. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support – Per nom. FaviFake (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)