Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fakhr Razi and development of Kalam


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fakhr Razi and development of Kalam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

100% OR and COATRACK. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

keep: as it is clear the references are valid according to Wikipedia and the subject of article creates and follows of a popular viewpoint among scholars.it is not at all OR.i try to create a new article on new subject which is not existed before.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COATRACK. Barely legible essay about something in Islam, but nobody know what.--Yopie (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is a personal reflection on history by someone, not an actual notable topic per wide coverage in academic sources. Even the title reads like a journal article, not an encyclopedia entry. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * as i mentioned above, the idea of this article not only is not personal but emphasized by scholars which referred to him in the Article.can you show which part of article is a personal opinion. i think there is not such a thing at all. at the same time i' am wondered that how it is possible that some academic source emphasized on the subject of Article but some editors express no body know what. it is really denying evidences.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fakhr Razi. It helps to improve the main article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 16:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's nothing left to merge, since the entire non-Coatrack section is already present at Fakhr Razi, including all linguistic errors. It was very difficult to find out what the text is about, but I think the subject is Fakhr Razi's philosophical/theological view. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete total coatrack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 22 December 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.