Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isa dreams


 * 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. ceradon ( talk •  contribs ) 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Isa dreams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing deletion nomination on behalf on an IP editor. The rationale given was

This article should be deleted for 2 reasons:

Also, note that the vast majority of references lack page numbers.
 * 1) It lacks notability. Isa dreams (very clumsily named) do not appear to have any real significance to Muslims. A web search appears to show this issue has non-existent notability among Muslims. This article appears to be a case of Christian propagandists telling Muslims they have a belief that they did not know of! (A belief which also, handily, benefits these Christian propagandists.)
 * 2) The article seriously lacks reliable sources. Looking at the 'Further reading', 'References' and 'External links' sections, the sources used are unreliable, highly biased, Christian propagandist books or websites. The only reliable sources, John C. Lamoreaux, The Early Muslim Tradition of Dream Interpretation (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002), 4 and The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), 335 (reference numbers 3 & 5, respectively) are used to cite information in the article that has nothing to do with Isa dreams themselves; rather they cite info that talks about dreams in Islam generally.

This article is clearly the product of a Christian propagandist using Christian propagandist sources. It also lacks notability for anyone other than these Christian propagandists—who have themselves contrived this issue.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Reyk  YO!  13:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work and may rely too heavily on biased sources. That said I think there is enough RS coverage to pass GNG. Just because a subject may get more coverage from sources unfriendly to a given group or faith identity doesn't make it non-notable. Also sources from outside of a given religious tradition are not automatically unreliable, though I agree with the nom that some of these do look suspect. This looks like one part legitimate content dispute and one part WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am going to tag it as needing improvement, but I think the topic exists and there is enough out there to warrant coverage in an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't at all appreciate your implying that i have nominated this article partly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only thing that fired me up to nominate for deletion is because it is patently non-notable and has zero reliable sources where it matters (ie. in relation to dreams about Isa). I could similarly argue that you have ulterior motives for voting for a keep, due to your Orthodox Christian affiliation. You say you "think there is enough RS coverage"; could you please elaborate? Do a Google Books search of the topic and you will find zero reliable source coverage; you may find several books published by lulu.com!--58.106.224.138 (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep- I think a deletion nomination needs to go beyond attacking so-called "Christian propagandists". IMO the sourcing is dubious in places and the article suffers from some WP:NPOV problems, but the sourcing does amount to substantial coverage. A merge would also be possible if a suitable target can be identified. Reyk  YO!  07:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only serious merge target i can think of is Jesus in Islam—assuming the article is kept.--58.106.224.138 (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not quite ready to vote delete yet, but to the two editors who said there are reliable sources: what are they? To me it looks like some decent sources were cited for tangential supporting statements, while the main points are sourced to some very BS-looking websites. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete My analysis is the same as Sammy's: There are reliable sources for the first paragraph, which cites the Muslim name for Jesus and the fact that dreams can be regarded as important sources of inspiration or even prophecy by Muslims. But the second paragraph is pure propaganda, sourced to either to books which we can't evaluate since they are offline, but whose titles make clear that they are Christian treatises promoting Muslim conversion (sample: Muslims’ Miraculous Journey to Jesus) or else to promotional Christian websites (sample: This is a thrilling time in our history! This isn’t history past, this is happening right now. Pray to discern your part in this story and He will speak to your heart. You are one of the faces of hope.) As such they cannot be regarded as independent or authoritative, and without them, the article has no significant content. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of any evidence that "Isa dreams" are a concept in Islam, or even that they are notable as a Christian theory of what Muslims dream about. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per the concerns above. The first paragraph appears to be synthesis - citing material on the general significance of dreams in Islam to argue that dreams about Isa are of particular importance. The second paragraph is close to propaganda, and should have no place in Wikipedia. We don't cite proselytisers for one faith as reliable commentators on another faith entirely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 13 July 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.