Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Islamic texts


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamic texts

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per Category:Religious texts: “Religious texts, also known as scripture, are the texts which various religious traditions consider to be sacred…”.

This article falsely lists general works such as translations of the Qur’an, tafsir (exegesis), biographies and hadith collections as “Islamic texts”.

The alternative is to redirect to the existing Islamic holy books article, which correctly lists Islam’s holy books (to Muhammad, and to other prophets). Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  01:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Islamic texts seems to be a general term and if the nominator doesn't like the exact way it's being interpreted here, that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , it is my understanding that the so called "general" books would belong to Category:Islamic literature, whereas the more specialized Category:Islamic texts would cover Islam's holy books: the Qur'an, Torah, Injil, Zabur and other sacred books considered to be divine. Let me know if you disagree. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to neglect part two of the definition given at Category:Religious texts: "...or of central importance to their religious tradition." The things you call "general works" are covered by part two of that definition, at least in mainstream Islam. But even without that, it seems rather odd to base your rationale on a definition from a Wikipedia category page. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way are the translations of the Qur'an/tafsir/asbab al-nuzul considerd to be of "central importance to the Islamic tradition"? Even within the Sunni tradition, it is quite false to claim that the Al-Tabari's monumental tafsir is of "central importance" to Islam. Hence the problem with this article as it currently stands. It is simply a list of Islamic genres that has no end. What prevents me from adding the works of Qira'at to the list now?
 * Basing it on the parent category, it is my understanding that Islamic texts here refers to either (1) "sacred" books (Qur'an, Torah, Injil, Zabur, Abraham's suhuf) or (2) works of "central importance" (I would assume they are those mentioned under Sources of sharia). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are trying to say, but it is all based on what some editor thought would be a nice definition for a Wikipedia category, without mentioning any sources for that definition. While I myself have a bias against list articles for which there are no sources, people kept telling me that "it is for navigational purposes, so it's okay that it is basically WP:SYNTHESIS" (see last part of WP:LISTN). I still do not agree, because we've got categories for that purpose, but who is to argue with non-written norms... In this case, List of Islamic texts serves as an annotated navigational list of lists of texts about Islam, written by Muslims (i.e. Islamic texts). If the entries in these lists are not texts or not Islamic, then what are they? - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 27 February 2016 (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.