Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-kitab (Quran)


 * 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.  Singu larity  23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Al-kitab (Quran)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is entirely WP:OR and is rather incoherent. It reads like an essay, and doesn't seem all that encyclopedic. It cites no secondary sources, and so fails WP:RS and WP:V. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * HelloAnnyong.: Respected sir,
 * this article is coherent to Arabic text of Quran, which is the Quran and nopt the Translation with brackets is Quran. and articles like islamic holy books injil Aqida and Qur'an have wrong references of Qurani ayats. if encyclopedic means all wrong information, then i cannot say, do what u like. Only the arabic text of Quran can verify about any claim written for Quran. People are writing and quoting qurani ayats but unfortunately that claim doesnot exists in that verse of Quran.
 * can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete-The article mentions information that is already in Islamic holy books. That is, in some way, a content fork. If another article already exists, I see no reason why there should be another article on the same subject. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zacharycrimsonwolf, Respected sir.:
 * islamic holy book is not coherent to text of Quran? Quran doeasnot say any where in its arabic text that Allah sent 4 books. any artilce for Quran must be as per text of Quran and not as per writer's feeling what he wants. should  the claim about text of Quran not veriable with text of Quran? or wrong claims in the name of Quran is called encyclopedic  as read please Qur'an talk page.
 * can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea.Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think there is probably enough scholarly assessment of the names of the Qur'an (as there are the names of God) that this might be able to have an article... but citing primary sources only means this whole article would have to be cut and without someone willing to cite outside sources and Farrukh making the religious argument on the talk page that we shouldn't be using tafsir or Western sources--but the Qur'an itself, I doubt that will get done, unfortunately. gren グレン 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG.: Respected sir, Quran has its Arabic text and any document must be verifiable with it's Arabic text . If any article doesnot have the messe ge as per original Arabic text of QWuran then it would be about Quran and not as per Quran. AL-kitab (Quran) is not a modern commentary but the actual truth written in Arabic text of Quran which can be verifiable with its Arabic text as per given references.... Farrukh38 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Grenavitar|.: Respected sit, just think any claim for Quran, must be verifiable with Arabic text of Quran or against the Arabic text of Quran? or like Islamic holy books has wrong information about previous scriptures. if some body is writing for primary source, then claims must be verified with Arabic text of Quran,Nobody should write wrong about primary source. tafsir must be verifiable with Arabic of Quran and not in the name of tafsir one should write what ever he like.can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle  be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea.Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan.  Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.   —gren グレン 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fork of Qur'an and Islamic holy books. The article is a personal essay in which Farrukh seems to be arguing his own thesis about what the usage of "kitab" in the Qur'an refers to. I don't believe there is any reliable precedent for the arguments made, on which basis I think the article also violates WP:OR and WP:V.  ITAQALLAH   17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah .:  you looks muslim and you should not conceal the truth. i wrote many times on Qur'an page that citation must verify the claims and read Qutan talk page you will find many claims having Qurani ayats references but nobody will find that claim in that referenced ayat of Qur'an, is this called "encyclopedic"?
 * can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea. Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment We do not do particularly well at enWP with our articles on traditional Islamic learning. In general, the articles are based entirely on traditional sources without modern commentary in either Arabic or English. It's my impression that there is such material, but I do not myself have the ability to work with it. We need to find editors who can do so, if we are to have good articles. I urger those working on these subjects to try to find material that fits into our non-traditional framework, and explains the traditional learning in a way hat our readers will understand, with references they can obtain and go to beyond the text of the article and the Qur’an itself. That will be a real contribution to cultural understanding, DGG (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that general sentiment. The problem here is that I can't see/understand what encyclopedic topic Farrukh is trying to discuss. The traditional views about the Qur'an and Islamic holy books of the past have been covered in their respective articles (although, as always, there is plenty of room for improvement). What I see Farrukh attempting is a discussion about how the multiple uses of al-kitab refer to one entity. In doing so he also claims that ahl al-kitab does not actually refer to Jews and Christians, and that that Psalms/Zabur came after the Qur'an, among other things. This essentially goes against the established facts in any of the works (traditional and modern) available... but OK, verification of claims/ideas is what matters primarily here. Yet he insists on not using secondary sources, making it extremely difficult to verify these unusual claims, and presenting a major problem in terms of verification and original research. It's also impossible to understand the article text sometimes, especially where he incorrectly inserts the wrong Arabic.   ITAQALLAH   18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ITAQALLAH.: This is not a matter of sentiments but any article about Quran must be as per text of Quran and not views of anybody about Quran. i donot understand to which Itaqallah call " encyclopedic topic "?, all false informations about Quran is the encyclopedic topic ? of course wrong information cannot be called "encyclopedic topic " . If the topic is Quran than it must be verifiable with the text of Quran and not with any other source which is telling about the text of Quran. about "Ah-lalkitab" please read this Text and tell ah-lalkitab are among the moninoon and not jews and christians " بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر وتؤمنون بالله ولو امن اهل الكتاب لكان خيرا لهم منهم المؤمنون واكثرهم الفاسقون

كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُم مِّنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُالْفَاسِقُونَ
 * Yousuf Ali Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. "
 * mihumul mominoona means among momins, ahlalkitab are among mominoon and not among jews and christians.
 * Should this truth be in encyclopedea ? or the secondary source, writing  about " Ah-lalkitab" as jews and christians....Please which Arabic text is wrong ? please write down here that wrong . Farrukh38 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I tried to indent this post, but I can't get the Arabic text to indent as well... &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Farrukh, the problem with basing an article on the Qur'an "as per text of Quran" itself is that everyone interprets the Qur'an differently. You prove that here yourself, you're forwarding your own interpretation about what the verses say which goes against the standard understanding of them. Sure, if you have any secondary reliable sources discussing or forwarding your view, then we can actually construct an article on the basis of WP:V. But you are adamant that no sources other than the Qur'an must be used, that your opinion is the correct one, and that there must be an article catering for your views. This goes against No original research, Verifiability, and also Neutral point of view.  ITAQALLAH   19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is intented as a contentfork of Qur'an and Islamic holy books. Fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I have given Farrukh advice on this article a few times, but in the end must conclude that it has no hope of becoming a proper encyclopedia entry. — BradV 16:49, 28 March 2008 (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.