Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itmaam-i-hujjat


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Itmaam-i-hujjat
Outrageously POV religious screed based upon a book Mizan, published by Pakistan's Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences. The creator of this article also created the article for the book and has been spreading its ideas throughout Wikipedia; there is no confirmation of notability, and certainly no reason to believe it a reliable source. Proabivouac 06:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This term is an Islamic term, so definitely it would have an Islamic POV.  TruthSpreader Talk 06:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Secondly, this article clearly says that this is asserted by Qur'an. So I do believe that if something is mentioned in Qur'an, it can be presented in the encyclopedia under the umbrella of Islam. And definitely, it would have its own POV. There is also one academic source, written by John Esposito, in the article, which gives the same notion. It is stated very clearly that it is Qur'an that asserts it.  TruthSpreader Talk 06:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Another unreasonable WP:RS complain from Proabivouac! Proabivouac, Wikipedia differs from many other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam. You seem to be familiar with the academic sources. They are not NPOV but wikipedia is supposed to be (for example, they say 'prophet Muhammad', 'Jesus christ'). Academic sources are written for a particular class of reader but wikipedia is written for general readers. In a nutshell, it is the notability of people that determines whether they have a place in wikipedia rather than the respect western academics have for them. WP:RS is designed in harmony with WP:NPOV. --Aminz 06:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is entirely dominated by one book, the entry for which was created by User:Truthspreader himself.Proabivouac 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this entry was created by me. You are wrong that it is fully based on one source. John Esposito says very clearly in his book that Muhammad's action were not different at all from his Hebrew counterparts. And this whole concept is nicely presented in this article. The facts are not only supported by Qur'an, but also supported by Bible.  TruthSpreader Talk 07:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the source is notable. The word of "Itmam-i-Hujjat" like the word "Insha'allah (God wills)" is an arabic word mixed with persian language. I am not however aware as to how the religous meaning of the term has been developed. I personally didn't find this concept to be in contradiction with what I knew before, but on the other hand consistent with that. This is an article on the term itself. If it wanted to be used in other articles, the only issue with that *may* be the undue weight given to it, NOT its POV or notability. --Aminz 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * speedy keep, tune the article prose for npov of course. We need more informed discussion of Islamic theology on WP, just as we could do with a lot more coverage on Christian dogmatic literature and lots of other topics. dab (&#5839;) 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to me to be an adequately referenced article with potential about an Islamic doctrine.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Same as Smerdis of Tlön.-- TruthSpreader Talk 14:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep --Aminz 21:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. the general concept is notable and i think it can be expanded upon, but i would definitely like to see more sources which have codified it precisely in this way.  ITAQALLAH   01:14, 5 October 2006 (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.