Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takwin


 * 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 - in accordance with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, articles are not deleted articles simply because they are philosophically displeasing - otherwise, Christians would disallow Gnosticism, Jews Messianic Judaism, etc. If they are notable and sourced, the article ought to remain. Patstuarttalk 21:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Takwin

 * — (View AfD)

non-existent,no sources or whatsoever,a muslim will never ever say "takwin refers to the artificial creation of life in the laboratory",this is clearly false information. Alnokta 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - google give some links, so it seems real. Geber has twice the reference to this article.  Seems enough for an historic/philosophical term.  I hope there is a good reference! Cate |Talk 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, there is a conflict; you cannot be a muslim and at the same time believe that you can create life in a laboratory. Jabir was an experimental chemist, also alchemy in Islam differs from alchemy at large. so there is no point of keeping the article, because if we remove the line about Jabir and the other irrelevant paragraph; there will be no article hence I'm adding it for deletion.
 * Comment - I think you do wrong assumptions. The article talk about research of about 1300 year ago. Islamic theology was not very developed, as also communications. Do you think that in a century the traditions and local believes can be erased?  And in all the people?  I think "Islamic" it should be interpreted more in an historical way, about environment, not in a very strict way. Cate |Talk 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Someone got a PhD out of researching this concept so it exists - whether a good muslim would do it is irrelevant; science is full of people doing things counter to what their religion tells them is allowed (and that seems to be part of the dissertation - this article could do with some expansion and sources). --Jamoche 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.    ITAQALLAH   20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)r
 * Nah, there is no such thing called takwin or not takwin, also that is not a proof of verifiability, I don't care if it from pennsylvania or else..there is a possibility of being a fake research or something.. the article is a false assumption and no need to keep it..btw, that don't happen in Islam and even if it happens, it will not happen in the golden era.. you don't just say need that or that..you don't know Islam and you keep in talking convincing other fellows of false information...I don't like to appear as bashing every keep statement but it is necessary to explain.. again, the article's subject is non-existent and needs to be deleted!.--Alnokta 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per Jamoche.  TruthSpreader reply 01:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per PhD link. --Striver - talk 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (negative): All of this talk about "Google says it's real" and someone's PhD dissertation means nothing since none of it is in the article ... the basic policy of WP:No original research says that there must be verifiable reliable source citations for assertions of WP:Notability ... as nom states, "no sources or whatsoever" in this article, so as it stands, it is blatant original research since it is unsubstantiated by any reliable sources ... "It is not about what you know, it is about what you can verify ." ... it looks as if this article was created solely to be referenced from Abu Musa Jabir ibn Hayyan, an undeniably notable 8th century Mulsim alchemist, but this subject is not worthy of an article of its own (except maybe Copy to Wiktionary) ... this material should be merged with his article, possibly as a new section, or as an expansion of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Citation is in the article now. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Coelacan. --Mardavich 16:49, 10 January 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.