Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles


 * 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.  Kurykh  02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a POV fork that lacks reliable sources. There are no scholarly sources presented in this article, and it is clear propaganda and POV.  Yahel  Guhan  05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Clearly this is an alphabet soup of problems. WP:OR and WP:NPOV to name a few.  There is nothing here to keep at all... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: As I mentioned on the article's talk page, this page doesnt need to exist. Imad should stop all this Islam/science stuff. Imad, please read WP:RS. We really dont need more problems in Islam related articles than we already have. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the comments above. Arrow740 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete First source seemed spammy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Matt57. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it doesn't even feature the good ones, like cloud formation and DNA! :P LinaMishima (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How is this article OR or unreliable. On one side you have a well known scientific theory, and on the other, you have a verse from the Quran that any capable person can verifiy readily. Why are you people to trying to delete this?206.126.81.223 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — 206.126.81.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I've spotted the references at the bottom of the article now, so you're right, this is not OR (although stronger references would be better). You could well be right that the article should be improved, rather than deleted. Ideally each entry would have details of the discussion of the comparison from all sides. LinaMishima (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: Anon IP, only 4 edits (first was a non-connected IP, used long ago, including that = 5 edits). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The referenced sources are reliable, and this article is not OR. There is another newly created article here, perhaps the two articles should be merged. (Imad marie (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
 * I am still not changing my vote, but of the two sources, I would only call the second strictly reliable. Secondly, the entire tone of the article and its TITLE especially is problematic.  If we were to have an article on this, why not "The Qur'an and modern science" or something like that... Still, I am not convinced this meets the guidelines even with a title change.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Justifications must be provided that asserts that (Zaghloul El-Naggar) and (Maurice Bucaille) are not reliable references, or else there is no justification to deleting the article (Imad marie (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)).
 * On the talk page of the article first you said "who in my opinion are two notable scholars". Then after I queried you, you said about Maurice Buccaile, "him being a scholar about Islam is perhaps debatable". None of these doctors have any qualifications to discuss other than being a regular doctor and perhaps writing a couple of books. Thats not WP:RS requires. There are no reliable 3rd party sources confirming their expertise, they are simply apologists. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot take part of what I said and post it here, the full sentence that I wrote was: "Maurice Bucaille is the author of a famous book, him being a scholar about Islam is perhaps debatable. However Zaghloul El-Naggar is definitely a notable Arab Islamic scholar". Now it makes much difference what I said, doesn't it? Naggar is a famous scholar in the Islamic community, he is the author of many Islamic books, and is interviewed in Arabic TV channels regularly, his profile can be found at the footer of this page and his CV at. If Najjar cannot be considered as an Islamic scholar, then I wonder who can be... (Imad marie (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
 * delete this is simply religious propaganda and it has no place in wikipedia.It is not reliable and it will never be since this issue is recognize only by Muslims apologist.Oren.tal (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Islamic propaganda? a look at some of the users contribution history voting here shows that they are the ones launching an anti-Islam propaganda. (Imad marie (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Your personal attack has nothing to do with my point that this article is merely propaganda.Oren.tal (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * In defense of Najjar as a reliable reference:
 * Najjar is recognized as a renowned notable scholar here, here, here and here. Naturally Najjar is presented by Arab owned media more than he is in the western owned media as he is a famous character in the Arab community.
 * Qur'an is written in the Arabic language, so it's only fair to present the Arab point of view through their notable scholars, NPOV states that wikipedia should represent fairly and without bias all significant views. (Imad marie (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Regardless of his appearance on a few other websites, he doesnt have peer reviewed journals and is not known in the scientific community and besides, the article cannot be justified only because of what he has done. He is as reliable a source as Robert Spencer who has been widely published and interviewed and written best selling books. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Robert Spencer is irrelevant in this debate. Itaqallah has suggested that no fork articles should be created about Islam and science for now, if this is OK with everyone then it's OK with me. (Imad marie (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Delete: WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and per above. This article is religious propaganda. Epson291 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep : I think we either merge it with some other article, or just simply keep it but with some clean up to ensure NPOV. &Lambda;ua&int; Wi  se  (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete this is nothing but propaganda and it has nothing to do in wikipedia.Oren.tal (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not the Nazi germany propaganda deserve coverage? What about the various attempts during the cold war? Propaganda does not mean delete, it means ensure that the matter is covered according to NPOV. LinaMishima (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem to coverage it as propaganda.But only as such thing.right now the article itself is propaganda and as such deserve to be delete.Oren.tal (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge There is a similar, very well developed article on this subject, however it may be titled after a neologism. These articles discuss real aspects of belief, and were Imams spread Islam, they often hand out fliers about this matter. LinaMishima (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, any useful material may be relocated to other existing articles on the topic. As it stands, I doubt there is much need for another fork.  ITAQALLAH   20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just a nuisance article --BozMo talk 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I do not see NPOV problems--in fact if i wanted to read this in a way hostile to Islam I could just as much as if i wanted to read it as supportive of Islam. But for an unpublished authority to be acceptable, there has to be specific support for it being an authority in the article. But i can not really seethe fuss one way or another about this really quite trivial article. There is a great deal more on the relationship of islam and modern science to be said, and it should be approached is a serious manner to make one or more good articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has to be kept as it is not a religious propoganda. The article speaks about the theories which are proved recently and accepted by todays world and the Quran which was revealed nearly 1400 years back speaks about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed25 (talk • contribs) — Mohammed25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete as WP:OR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV violations -- and pretty unconvincing ones at that. The relationship between the verses quoted and the scientific theories concerned is a classic example of cognitive biases such as the Forer effect and friends -- you could probably come up with similar analogies in Shakespeare. And the Big Crunch? It doesn't even have consensus among professional astronomers as being the ultimate fate of the universe. Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know about you guys but this is a notable topic within Islamic discussions. It is very discussed not just recently but even in historical times, so it should be keep even if you do not believe it because it is common information.--Salikk (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (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.