Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of Daniel


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Daniel

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Daniel plays absolutely no role whatsoever in islam. This article was created by a sockpuppet and banned user. Daniel is certainly not a prophet in Islam. Daniel is not mentioned in the Quran once. He is not mentioned in the sahih hadiths once. He is not even mentioned in any major hadith collections. The so-called hadith quoted is not a hadith, which is why he did not provide any citation. The primary editor User:Imadjafar has consented to the deletion of all articles redirected and merged into Biblical figures in Islamic tradition. The creator of this article User:Java7837 is a sockpuppet. Someone65 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -Aquib (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a reliable third party, discussing the subject of Daniel in Islam. The book is Prophets in the Quran: an introduction to the Quran and Muslim exegesis By Brannon M. Wheeler. His chapter on Daniel (beginning on page 80), by itself, satisfies the Wikipedia requirement for notability. Although Daniel is apparently not mentioned in the Quran, it appears Wheeler has included him in the book due to the numerous scholarly treatises on Daniel which have appeared in Islamic literature over the past 1400 years.


 * Why is Someone65 interested in deleting articles when he seems to have little knowledge of either the subject of the article or wp policy for notability? This is in fact just another attempt to remove or suppress content - like the mass page moves he attempted before he got banned for sockpuppetry last week.


 * Aquib (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that the article was created by what was to be proven to be a sockpuppet is irrelevant. It was created almost two years before they were blocked. While Daniel is not mentioned in the Qur'an or sahih hadith it would appear that he is considered a prophet by some Muslims. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this article. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the user that sent this to AfD is themselves a blocked sockpuppet. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage.
 * Keep sufficiently distinctive subject, adequate references.    DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there appears to be enough to analyze for this to be a good article. No reason in my mind to delete. The article could always be expanded. Lord Roem (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2010 (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.