Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali in the 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Ali in the Quran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nom for IP as requested at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. I have no opinion on notability. shoy (reactions) 15:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC) The IP's rationale is as follows:

This article should be deleted not only because of concerns noted above; basically, it is a pro-Shia puff-piece that could only conceivably belong in Shia view of Ali. It uses sparse Sunni sources of agreement with shiites to add a veneer of credibility and notability; remove these sources and all you have is the Shia view of Ali in the quran--which in itself lacks notability to be its own article. It's important to note that Ali is never mentioned by name in the Quran and many verses used to support his presence in the Quran are highly contentious between Sunnis and Shia; this is hardly the recipe for the notability required to create a whole article called Ali in the Quran. Using this example then a sunni could very easily create Abu Bakr in the Quran or Muhammad's wives in the Quran to pursue an agenda.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Conceding the article seems to have some POV issues, there appears to be ample RS coverage to establish encyclopedic notability for the topic. Everything beyond that looks like a content dispute and AfD is not the venue for that. Beyond which the nom doesn't really present a policy or guidelines basis for deletion. The OP's statement looks like a pretty classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The lede itself admits that the Quran does not name Ali per se and his inclusion is a sectarian point of view. To that end, this article can't help but be a POV issue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article currently stands, at the very least some effort is made to explain the Sunni POV (partly thanks to IP 58). In the case of the verse of wilayah we have what seem to be non-partisan reliable source claiming both Sunni and Shia agree the verse refers to Ali. I'd instead encourage the IP to help improve the article by including more of the Sunni POV. They seem to have some knowledge of the relevant debates and sources. Brustopher (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to add to my reasons for deletion above, it is notable that figures mentioned by name in the Quran and far more prominent in it don't even have their own wiki articles eg. we don't have anything like Jesus in the Quran or Moses etc. I think the intentions for this articles creation are pretty obvious.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But we do have an article on Jesus in Islam which mostly focuses on Jesus in the Quran. From what I can see the "in the Quran articles" seem to be more about people who aren't expliclitely mentioned (see Alexander the Great in the Quran Cyrus the Great in the Quran). Brustopher (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and just like Jesus, Ali in the Quran should be kept to the article on Ali--more specifically Shia views of Ali, since the afd is clearly presented with the shia view taking prominence and using Sunni sources to legitimize the shia view. Meanwhile, the cases of Alexander the Great in the Quran and Cyrus the Great in the Quran are unique. Neither of these figures could have articles called Alexander the Great in Islam or Cyrus the Great in Islam because any hint of their notability to Muslims is confined to the Quran--neglecting the fact that even their so-called notability in the Quran is all wild conjecture or outright falsehood. However, figures like Ali and Jesus are notable to Muslims not only in the Quran but also in the Muslim hadith and historical sources. So i don't think the analogy you used is appropriate.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How are the Sunni sources being used to legitimise the Shia view? Sunni sources like Ibn Kathir are cited to argue that Shia interperetations of several sura are wrong, and that they're not about Ali. The reason I compared the article to Alexander and Cyrus, is that it focuses on a scholarly debate (in part between Sunni and Shia) over whether or not a certain person is mentioned in the Quran. For the same reason Cyrus in the Quran should not be considered an Iranian POV pushing article in its ideal state, neither should this aritcle if its neutrality issues are ironed out. Brustopher (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the topic is notable, but there are POV problems. The Wikipedia can have articles about specific points of view that are not shared by all editors.  The classic example is Flat Earth. The article may need to be rewritten so that it is clear that these are the beliefs of some, but not all followers of Islam. I can understand why a Shi'ite would have difficulty with this article, but others have difficulty with the whole concept of the caliphate. --Bejnar (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello. I have been working on this article, and thanks to Brustopher's editing it won't have the problems mentioned above. I hope so. Hadi (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2015 (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.