Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn


 * 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 redirect to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. I note the article has been moved to userspace to be worked on, so preserving history behind redirect. Up to editor discretion if any of the content should be merged into the proposed target article in the interim. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

per WP:Fringe theories and WP:Verifiability, the article itself say:
 * "in a mid 17th century book called "Dabistan-i Madhahib" by anonymous writer(s) in India."
 * "These chapters are not to be found in the Qur'an and there is no record of them in earlier sources"
 * "Western Academics such as von Grunebaum view the text as a clear forgery"

(an anonymous writer) and (no record of them in earlier sources), so this information according to whom? the article also depended on one source from (islamic-awareness.org) and they say it's "forgery".

the article look like a hypothesis not facts, and no reliable sources can confirm these alleged chapters. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪  15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪  15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 02:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this article is very badly written as is clear from the intro “The chapters first appeared ten years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in a mid 17th century book” (???). The topic is two alleged quranic verses discovered centuries after the authoritative text had been established. The verses are a frequent topic of dissent between Sunni advocates who claim Shia Muslims accept them, and Shia advocates who say they don’t. There are reliable sources for this such as this, this and this, but the article needs a complete rewrite. Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the three sources you mentioned are reliable, but they don't give significant coverage to this topic. The first, two sources mention it only in passing, and the third source only gives a paragraph. If there's not much to cover then it should be merged into a parent article.VR talk 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I’ve copied the article to my user space so I can rewrite it as I believe there is a keepable article underneath the clutter. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. And while merging we should clearly make note that these claims are regarded as false by scholarship.VR talk</b> 04:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the merge suggested by Vice regent makes good sense, at least for the time being. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per vice regent Eddie891 Talk Work 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge: since there is (insufficiently thorough) coverage in reliable sources, a merge seems a good idea. That these are forgeries is not a problem, as long as it's clearly communicated. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question. why is Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam an appropriate merge target for this content? I ask because the article on Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam makes no mention of these forgeries (though I do see one mention of a Verse of Wilaya in a footnote in Twelver Shia Islam).  BD2412  T 03:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's a merge (not a redirect), the content doesn't yet have to be in the article. Rather, it would need to be incorporated into the existing article. Perhaps the "Corruption of the Quran" section might work. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * what modussiccandi said— there’s not a mention, but one can be added. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.