Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran and human evolution


 * 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. This is a POV fork, and no one has satisfactorily addressed concerns about original research in line with policy or guidelines. --Core desat 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Quran and human evolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is essentially uncited material, with no real context or explanation. Oli Filth 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Quran is a well established document. We have added Quranic references to support the points listed on this page. We will continue to add more supporting material as needed.Sylvia Nemmers 1:23, 29 July 2007
 * Note: User:Snemmers is the original editor of the article.


 * Delete No citations, Seems to lack much information. From my experience with the Quran it doesn't mention Human origins that much to begin with, especially "Evolution". Maybe a "Quranic creationism" or something would be more relevant.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Though the article does not assert much notability, it can be merged to the Qur'an.--NAHID 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not delete What we will present is a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support. We need more time to finalize editing the page, give us a break!.  Sylvia Nemmers 2:35, 29 July 2007
 * The Quran is not an independent, reliable source for information on an interpretation of the Quran! Oli Filth 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Extremely POV; the "Nobel Quran"? I suppose you meant "noble"? Anyhow, this is going to be 100% WP:OR if you "present a will organized and logical Quranic evidence with material support". Yeah, so the Earth was obviously created by Allah because surat 29:20 says "Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things." . You gotta love when religion tries to bend backwards to retrofit dogma with scientific legitimacy. --Targeman 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Comment The topic is "Quran and human evolution" so religion is a core part of it. Sylvia Nemmers 5:07, 29 July 2007


 * Delete as OR. Without reliable sources backing this up, it is pure original research.   Also, Wikipedia has no user User:Sylvia Nemmers.  This is in fact the sole author of the article, .  Cheers, Silly rabbit 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, 67.164.132.130 = Snemmers.


 * Delete as unsourced OR. The author appears to be making up the material along the way and has made dozens of seemingly trivial edits. The one "reference" website's coauthor is apparently this article's author. — Travis talk  01:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE Comment this is my first article and I am getting used to editing. I have added references that are authentic and I am a user "snemmers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.132.130 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2007

Now I am logged in as Snemmers, I had been working without being logged in. I am still getting used to the process.


 * DO NOT DELETE - I have added references that are authentic. And why is my "DO NOT DELETE" being blocked out.  I think that is uncalled for.  I add my comments, but I don't mark up other people's comments.  I believe the article meets the criteria, and it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Snemmers  (talk • contribs).
 * Comment. Convention is that a recommendation (keep, delete, etc.) should only be given once by an editor. For ease of visual scanning, repeat recommendations by a single editor are stricken. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x 2) Please do not add multiple "do not deletes" to this discussion. One is enough for anyone. Also, please sign your comments by adding four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks — Travis talk  03:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ornis ( t ) 05:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Original research, synthesis by the original editor. Note that the article was created by User:Snemmers. The article currently provides one external link; the linked cite contains a paper co-authored by a S. Nemmers. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research --Haemo 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as valid article re the evolution debate. Possibly rename in due course, to a more "learned" title, tro appease the Euro-American-sentric editors. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 07:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A different title or a non-Euro-American-sentric [sic]  POV will not change the fact that this original research is completely devoid of verifiable independent sources. The one reference given is hardly independent as it was coauthored by this article's author. That website, which appears to be its authors' interpretation of the Qur'an, also fails to reference any independent sources. — Travis talk  10:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But were it an erroneous interpretation, would not a Qu'ranic scholar have stepped up to say so ? -- SockpuppetSamuelson 13:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what that has to do with anything - expound? Sidatio 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No Qu'ranic scholar has stepped up to defend it, either, so I'm not sure what we can glean from this... Oli Filth 13:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete an article on the subject is appropriate, but this ingenious interpretation is hardly representative of the topic, and i cannot tell from the article to what extent it is a reproduction of the one source, or the author's OR.DGG (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: It's really little more than unsourced original research. In its current state, I can't even see it being merged into anything. On the plus side, though, this would make a pretty good storyline for an RPG. Are you reading this, Square Enix? Sidatio 23:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have taken out all original research and left the verses of the Quran and the ideas that have been presented by Al-Tabari in his Tafsir which is a reliable source. There is no entry on this subject and what I have put is a start.  Others can edit, that is what Wiki is all about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snemmers (talk • contribs).
 * Comment. That now renders the article a collection of excerpts from a published work with no "article" to hold it together. At best, it's now a Wikisource candidate, although it's so excerpted that I don't think that's appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sylvia Nemmers has been working awhile on this article, and deserves the right to keep improving it, with additional sources (including cites to Quranic scholars). The Quran, like the Bible, is its own source.  Interpretations of the verses of either may need more than one persons view, of course.  Mandsford 00:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no where near enough material here to justify its own article yet. Any thing worthwhile should probably go into Theistic evolution. ornis ( t ) 01:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst the Quran may be used as a source for the literal phrases used as part of the analysis, it cannot be used as a source for the analysis itself, because that would be original synthesis on the part of the author of this page. There must be independent sources to show that this analysis has been studies by more people than just the author.  Oli Filth 07:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid sources, and an importent topic, needs expantion. Exelionhunter 01:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * — Exelionhunter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment As you might have guessed this is my first article. I will be working to make it a more complete discussion of the topic.  I could use some time and suggestions rather than deletion requests. Snemmers 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As I suggested above, rather than trying to start an article from scratch, you should expand the Islam section of theistic evolution. If that section ever grows too large for the parent article it will be forked off into a new article.ornis ( t ) 01:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for your suggestion, but the topic is Quran and human evolution, not Islam and human evolution. The article presents verses in the Quran that deal with the topic of human evolution and what the original Quranic scholars said they ment.  The article is not presenting the views of Muslims.  Also Wiki is a search based resource and if this topic is merged with another article as you suggested, it will not be found when people are looking for what the Quran says about evolution.Snemmers 02:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, that's what redirects are for. In aid of which I'll change my vote to....
 * Merge and redirect to Theistic evolution. ornis ( t )</b> 02:34, 1 August 2007 (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.