Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad's miracle


 * 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   merge to Miracles of Muhammad. v/r - TP 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad's miracle

 * – ( View AfD View log )

(Endorsed PROD declined) Article is in violation of WP:NOT (namely, Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a recruitment tool or the place to promote one's beliefs. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 08:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 08:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete appears to be a sermon, not a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSH PR0MPT (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete I don't see the point of the article. A section about alledged miracles would be fine in the pages about Islam, Muhammad, etc but not something like that. If one of the alledged miracles is notable enough, then it should have an article of its own. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Appears that this article may be in violation of the WP:NPOV. Also noting the nominator's point regarding the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOTOPINION). Leventio (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced personal essay. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreferenced essay. Article creator has also tried creating this at Muhammad's miracles and tried overwriting Miracles of Muhammad. 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WIKIFY & MERGE with Miracles of Muhammad It does have references, but they just need to be wikified, this article can be turned into somehting similar to Miracles_of_jesus. The Determinator  p  t  c  19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with the wikify and merge that Determinator suggested. It's clearly got problems with using a primary religious text, but it's far from the only article with that issue, and the content isn't so problematic that it isn't better to keep it and back up with secondary sources when possible, rather than deleting. I don't see the POV issue - pages on the miracles ascribed to other religious figures aren't considered recruitment material, because it is obvious in the structure and language that these are sourced to religious rather than historical texts and form part of adherents' religious beliefs rather than generally accepted history, and this is no different. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Miracles of Muhammad and integrate the information found here to that article. We shouldn't have two articles like we have now werldwayd (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (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.