Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Aja'ib al-makhluqat wa-ghara'ib al-mawjudat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Necademic, please understand that wikification is necessary on every article in the project, and keep in mind your contributions are licensed under GFDL, which allows other users to edit them. --Wafulz 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Aja'ib al-makhluqat wa-ghara'ib al-mawjudat

'Aja'ib al-makhluqat wa-ghara'ib al-mawjudat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The page was initially speedied and recreated as a nonsensical textdump and plot summary of the book; the user has removed the bulk of the article and removed the speedy tag. It now seems to consist mainly of "this guy told that guy this and that and the book is great" and a bibliography. I still can't make sense of it, but it's not a textdump. Taking it to AfD. JuJube 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. It's not a title which is immediately significant to me (although my background isn't in that particular era of the Middle East), which suggests that it's "just a book". Neither does the author appear to have much in the way of notability on a cursory check. That said, the fact that it's been preserved might mean that it has some level of significance. I'll keep looking later today (my time) and see if anything comes up. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • In light of the new evidence provided, weak keep, tending stronger after I've had a good look at the information provided. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Following the bad-faith actions of the original author, strong delete with no prejudice against a recreation by someone who is prepared to accept that he or she doesn't own the text and to avoid making a point of the whole thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Change that again. Keep as a notable book. The stylistic aspects of the article need to be addressed and are being progressively so. Page-blanking on the part of the article creator is a bad-faith action, but not a particularly nasty one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable medical, veterinary and geographical work of major significance. English language title, "Marvels of things created and miraculous aspects of things existing". This book was the first major illustrated work in the Arabic language. Description and example pages from various editions:

[Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 2], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 3], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 4], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 5], [Islamic Medical Manuscripts at the National Library of Medicine Natural History 6] Mosura 05:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear JuJube, you don't explain why my entry is a textdump? I am a historian of the Middle East and sat down to write this article and gave a proper bibliography. Mosura rightly points out that this 'Aja'ib al-makhluqat is an important work. - Necademic

  • I don't want to put words in JuJube's mouth here, but looking at the article as it currently stands, I would call that a text dump as well. It may well be a perfectly decent explanation of what the book is about and so forth, but the lack of wikilinks and other features makes it particularly unattractive. The overwhelming impression is that it's just been "dumped" here indiscriminately from somewhere else. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

- If the problem is that it does not have Wiki links and other features - which you can enlighten me about - that those can be added by me or someone else. The whole idea of Wikipedia that somebody starts an entry and other continue it. I don't see a problem really. I have no problems in withdrawing my entry. As to the "dumping": I am happy to send my original article with all the footnotes. - Necademic

True enough, but (for me at least) when a mass of text just "appears" from nowhere, it's often a bad sign. Where wikilinks are concerned and that kind of thing, this is probably a conversation we'd be better off having on my Talk page. Just click on the link marked "Schreit mich an" and then click on the plus sign to leave a new comment and I'll be able to help you out with that kind of thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment — I can't judge the notability of this article very well, but it appears to need work in order to be properly encyclopedic. Much of the text seems decidedly preachy. — RJH (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not opposed to keeping this article if it can be rewritten to be legible. However, I do wonder if it requires this title. There's no English translation? JuJube 21:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've started work on wikifying and copyediting the article - although it's going to be a long process. There's an English translation of the title at any rate, and now that I know what I'm looking for there may be more than just that. Legibility et al will cease to be issues soon enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

- I have removed the article gentlemen; I agree that the English needs to be improved but it was supposed to be academic. And it seems some people here do not appreciate that or they do not understand because they don't have the "background". Whatever the case, dear BigHaz, please do not "wikify" my text but start a new entry if you wish so. - necademic

      • I've restored this comment for clarity, so that anyone involved in closing the debate can see what happened. What I was doing was improving the English to the extent that it would need to be. You're welcome to correct me where I'm wrong, but the edits I was making were the exact edits that would need to be made by anyone else at some point along the line. At no point was the meaning of the text being knowingly changed, and if it was being unknowingly changed, I apologise and would have been perfectly happy to revise what was going on. Wikification is a process which should by rights be done to any and all articles, and I do thank you for providing the information in the first place. Remember, however, that nobody owns any article written here and the text was in need of copyediting and the like anyway. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:33, 26 April 2007 (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.