Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an


 * 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 AND CLEANUP. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 23:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an

 * — (View AfD)

I know this is going to be a controversial deletion so I decided to take this to AfD directly instead of prodding it. Basically, before you do anything, I want you to discard all of your biases and prior knowledge of this topic and look at it completely objectively. If you can't do that, I don't think you should make any judgment on this AfD because you probably have some kind of vested interest in the topic or something which would interfere with your neutrality. Now, looking at this monster of an article, all I see is original research. There are zero references in the entire article except when it quotes primary sources (being the Bible and Qur'an itself). That in itself is okay sometimes, but throughout the article, large sections of both works are quoted and it leaves the reader to draw conclusions, sort of like saying "Here's two passages. They have similarities." and just leaving it at that. Finally, the Bible and Qur'an are similar. So what? The Lion King and Hamlet are similar too but they don't have an article that just puts two sections of them side-by-side verbatim without even explaining why they're similar (a side note, is it copyvio to have such large blocks of Biblical and Qur'anic text in an article?). That is something that should be discussed in their individual articles, if it's notable enough at all (and a side note, isn't it obvious enough that the Bible and Qur'an would have similarities even without an article on it?). Axem Titanium 20:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no vote yet Good points. The question is: Is the article verifiaBLE. And another interesting question: Would it be ok with OR in SOME cases? Or in other words, is it OR if the facts are obviously self-evident and non-controversial? Im sure everybody agrees that this is a more ... uh.... "notable"? ... uh... topic than comparing The Lion King with Hamlet. --Striver 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR unless article can be rewritten with proper sourcing, in which case, stubify and restart This is a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia, but at the moment, the article appears to be pure original research. I don't see any copyvio issues here however. Bwithh 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * delete- i agree there is no copyvio, but I do not agree that this is a viable topic for an article. The question posed by Striver is a telling one - "is OR ok in some cases?" I think the answer is no, even when its self-evident stuff.  OR is OR, and the fact that something is true does not make it automatically valid as a WP article.--Dmz5 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * well, to clarify my comment, I mean that this is a reasonable article if there is no original research (including "self-evident" stuff) i.e. rely on authoritative secondary sources only instead. A quick glance at google books suggests that there are books out there making this kind of comparison. How reliable these sources are will take further investigation Bwithh 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The entire article consists solely of original research. Unless it can be backed up by several scholarly sources on the topic it must go.  --The Way 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from the title, this article is redundant with Islamic view of the Bible. Delete this version, point links/redirects to Islamic view of the Bible, and leave this name (or a stub) available in case someone wants to make a sourced article that meets the title.  BCoates 11:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think large chunk of text from Qur'an and Torah should be removed and commentary from secondary reliable sources should be included. This can be done by first trimming the whole article by removing all primary sources.  TruthSpreader Talk 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the article can be salvaged. In words case, stubify. --Striver 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up. This is one of the instances where the only reference can be both holy books and some obscure compared religion books. Doubt anythyng useful can be found on the web to reference it. Somebody will have to move his bulk to a good library. Alf photoman 20:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. Anomo 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite it FirefoxMan 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * very strong keep. This is a compilation and not OR--but it is a very useful compilation. I can not understand why scholarly sources are wanted by The Way: the sources are the paraphrased texts. The reader is supposed to judge for himself. Do we need a scholarly work to tell us what part of the Bible discusses Moses?
 * There are some things to be improved: the title is not a good choice--this is a comparison of some events and people in the Koran with the OT and NT. It -- fortunately -- is not about the similarities of their ethical or religious content, or their style, or their manner of composition, or their historical influence. It -- fortunately -- does not attempt to judge which story is more likely to be historical, or to cite sources who might give their opinions on that.
 * The paraphrases are too long, as are the sections done by quotation. It would be better to make compact accounts, with appropriate parts as quotations in each of the sections--and to make each parallel a main section. this would be much more readable. And perhaps it is not a good idea to include the entire Gospels as one paraphrase. I'd advise doing just the OT here, and do a separate article for the Gospels. DGG 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Scholarly context is needed. Obviously these texts were not originally written in modern English. Plus, Wikipedia is not a religious text archive (though Wikiquote or WIkisource might be used for this). Also see my comments below Bwithh 00:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * some comments This discussion is notable for the most drastic misunderstanding of copyright yet seen in WP. Neither the Bible nor the Koran are copyright. Specific translations may be, but most of this is paraphrase, and citing a few verses from even a recent translation is just about the clearest example of fair use I can imagine. (though if a particular translation is used, it should be identified)
 * I do not see this as biased to an Islamic view. The only reason why someone would think so is the relative unfamiliarity of the Koran when read by someone who knows the Bible thoroughly. I hope it does not mean that the editor thinks that any mention of a non Judeochristian view is necessarily bias. Even if we for some reason judge by length, the Koranic passages are usually shorter. DGG 05:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, it is known that the Qur'an cites passages of the old testament Rough 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly useful for researchers.--Patchouli 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment But without sourcing and context, this is not of much use to researchers. The article does not even indicate which versions of the Koran and the Bible are used. There are substantial differences and debates over interpretation and translation of these texts. As it is, the article seems to suggest with its quotations that the English language versions of the Koran and Bible are stable and uncontroversial. But the meaning of these texts is a matter of dispute even for those fluent in the relevant strains of Arabic and Hebrew/Greek. Proper referencing and scholarly context is needed. Bwithh 00:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourcing is possible; has redeeming value. --Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners!  10:39, 13 December 2006 (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.