Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qur'an and miracles

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 due to rewrite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an and miracles

Qur'an and miracles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete There are no miracles in the quran. This is not a factual article. It is not varified. See WP:V. It is bias per the title (See WP:NPOV), unencyclopediac (also per title), horribly written, unreferenced with Reliable sources. This article is aslo a vehicle for propaganda and inventions. Sefringle 02:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See talk:Qur'an and miracles#Un-sourced statements. It can be seen that the creator of this article made it to see if it would be nominated for deletion.--Sefringle 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources, irretrievably POV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A horribly confused article of no encyclopaedic value. --Folantin 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wow. i assume it was made by a person associated with the oft cited webpage with a similar name to the article. contributes nothing to wikipedia.--Tainter 23:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you see here, it seems to have been a bad faith creation.--Sefringle 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. With 1300+ years of writings on theology and Islam, I'm pretty sure an encyclopaedic article can be made on this topic, but this isn't it per all of the above. For the same reason, with 1300+ years of sources, we can do better than linking ad nauseum to the same website. It looks like link spamming to me. - Aagtbdfoua 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and stubify or restore some older not-so-much-vandalized and more NPOV version - there are such versions in the history of the article, I think. Miracles in holy books (Bible, Quran etc.) are notable field of work for both theologians (from the perspective of their faith) and social scientists who research religions from the outside point of view. We should have an article like e.g. Miracles attributed to Jesus also in this case. This does not mean that we all believe in miracles in Quran, but we must describe what the people write about them.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran, it doesn't make sense to have an article about them. And if the article exists for propaganda purposes, it is unencyclopeidac to have such an article. I think what you are talking about is already stated in Islamic view of miracles. I did not nominate that article for deletion, because although it is poorly written, it has a much greater potential to become scholarly and encyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that your premise "there are no scholarly sources attributing miracles to the quran" is wrong: The Quran itself stresses the miraculous revelation given by Allah (God) to Muhammad (e.g. Sura 41:6), and this important claim is then analyzed in the scholarly literature - for example I have at hand a copy of Spurensuche - Die Weltreligionen auf dem Weg by Hans Küng in Czech translation, where this is described on page 269. Therefore the aricle can and should be rewritten in encyclopedic manner, in my opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as irremediably addled nonsense.Proabivouac 01:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hardly legible, not verifiable, undermines the credibility of this encyclopedia. -- Aylahs ^(talk) 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this is highly encyclopedic and, well-sourced. factual accuracy is not disputed (If you want to, you can even read quran and prove for yourself). I don't see why this article have to be deleted. But the article needs repairing on writing tone. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 09:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep

1. Title does not imply that there are any miracles in the Qur'an, only that the article is about those two subjects, thus is the title perfectly NPOV. Miracles in the Qur'an would be Muslim POV. Whose point of view does "Qur'an and miracles" propagate? Even an atheist could write an article with that name, only to proceed with denying every single claimed miracle.
2. I reverted to an older version were everything is formulated as claim and nothing is takes as factual, thus, there is no NPOV problems
3. There is no Verifiability problems, anyone can check even the internet to see a plethora of Muslim websites claim miracles in the Qur'an, in fact, those claims are to be found in all major websites and you can even find some websites dedicated to explore claims of miracles.
4. You don't need a scholarly source for a topic like this, i can't find any scholarly source for Pokemon, just a lot of people that enjoy them, if you get my point. Just how many scholarly sources to you find regarding List of Star Trek planets, Candy bar or The Headington Shark ? And even if it were necessary, which it is not, there are lots of Muslim scholars that have written about this topic, for example Zakir Nike, just from the tip of my head.
5. Needs better sources? Sure. So fix it. But don't claim that there IS no prominent and notable Muslim sources that claim so, for the Qur'an itself makes such a claim.

--Striver - talk 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rename Keep: Rename it like 'Islamic View on Quranic miracles'. --Falcon007 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article presents a very one-sided Islamic view now, but I do not see a reason why we should support it. The Islamic view should be a part of the article, but not the only part, otherwise we'll lose NPOV. There is a lot of sources from Christian and secular POV about it, too; why not mention them?--Ioannes Pragensis 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. That was just a suggestion considering the current state of the article that would have been the title. Anyway, it needs lot of improvements and other point of views should be included to make it more presentable. --Falcon007 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete The claim that there are no miracles in the Quran is obviously religiously-based POV and is not reason for deletion. The article however is altogether unintelligible, and the subject should probably be approached from a fresh start. DGG 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are arguing for is a editorial issue and not an argument for deleting an article. You don't need an afd to stubify an article. --Striver - talk 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article need work but topic is encylopedic. It can be improved to be a good article. Do not delete it give it more time and chance to develop. --- ALM 23:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ioannes Pragensis and Striver. ITAQALLAH 01:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above, good catch Sefringle. Arrow740 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: OK guys, the article was really horrible. Therefore I have rewritten it from scratch and I believe that by now it is an above-average stub - could you please look at it once again?--Ioannes Pragensis 09:20, 14 January 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.