Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The English Commentary of the Holy Quran


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The English Commentary of the Holy Quran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * (= title used in cited sources)
 * (= title used in cited sources)

The book is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG or subject specific criteria. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Found 2 reviews meets WP:NBOOK. Probably needs a rewrite though. Brustopher (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reviews are related to an English version of Quran with commentary which are 3 volumes but our case is an English commentary which are 5 volumes. Mhhossein (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect these are different editions of the same translation, but I don't feel like dedicating the time to finding out. Withdrawing my !vote for the timebeing until someone figures out what the connection between these two books are. If the article is focusing on a latter edition of the earlier book, then it really ought to be completely rewritten. Brustopher (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete non notable translation. Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. A couple of obscure references doesn't change this. 213.205.251.233 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, the article is confusing, is it about an English translation of a book that was first published in around 1917?, 1947?, essentially a reprint in English?, or is it a reinterpretation? Should there be an article on the earlier work and this becomes another edition mentioned in the article?Coolabahapple (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * . I think is right that they are different editions of the same book. Brustopher's first link can also be viewed here without a paywall. Based on that review and the publisher's notes, it seems that the initial idea was to have 3 volumes. After finding out however, that these volumes would be too big, they decided to divide them further. This list of books for example, implies that there were indeed "3 volumes [divided] in 4 [books]" by 1963. The 5-book edition seems to be from 1988, since the publisher's notes say "First Published in U.K. in 1988..." - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and add a notability banner. If notability isn't established after a period of time, reconsider for deletion. Eperoton (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:45, 30 December 2015 (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.