Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tafsir al-Qummi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Tafsir al-Qummi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable. Only has one unreliable source. Knowledgegatherer23 ( Say Hello ) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Keep: There are many Google Books references.--AAonlyA (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Knowledgegatherer23  ( Say Hello ) 14:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there reason to doubt that this is, as the Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi article says, "one of the earliest and most important available Shi'a exegetical sources"? If that's true, it's quite clearly notable. The nomination rationale does not address this. Jfire (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Question for @Knowledgegatherer23: would any of the many references in the Persian fa:تفسیر قمی or Arabic ar:تفسير القمي versions of this article work here after running through a translator like Google?
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: This page is significantly more developed in Arabic and Persian and simply needs expanding from those pages. The general notability appears clear from the seminal nature of the work in Shi'ism. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @A. B. Yes, now that I look at it, I would support expansion from the arwiki or fawiki. However, arwiki seems to rely on one source a lot. Knowledgegatherer23  ( Say Hello ) 23:24, 4 November 2023 (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.