Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narratives of Islamic Origins


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Narratives of Islamic Origins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 08:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 09:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) (please reply using &#x7B;&#x7B;ping&#x7D;&#x7D;) 09:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Fred Donner via . The book does appear to exist, but sources give no more coverage than brief passing mentions, so it partially fails WP:GNG. Content is unsourced, so I'd rather not go merging stuff. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Keep. Certainly looks much better now than the previously unsourced three-line stub, thanks to Tokyogirl and Eperoton's sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The failure to even meet the WP:GNG has been mentioned; the book simply doesn't have evidence of any notability. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect; I simply view deletion as the most preferable option. If the book really isn't notable, the chances that someone might search Wikipedia, fail to find it, and leave the site without then searching for the author are slim. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fred Donner. The book is certainly notable (JSTOR has five reviews ranging from positive to glowing ), but there's no reason to spin off this stub from the main article. No prejudice against recreating a substantial and policy-compliant version of the article. Eperoton (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Keep No rationale for deleting the improved version. Eperoton (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are enough sources to establish notability and a search shows that the work is considered to be pretty influential as far as today's Islam studies go, since it is repeatedly used as a source or mentioned in various works. Per this link it also seems to be mentioned or used in at least one university course, as it is part of this syllabus for Hartford Seminary. I've fleshed the article out so it's more than just a stub and I think that the best option would be to get someone familiar with the work to further expand the article. I don't really think that redirecting it would do it a true service here. The article for the author has a brief overview but the book as a whole could be expanded more in its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:53, 8 October 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.