Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NBOOK. Book-jacket reviews fail #1. There are about about 30 citations, as obtained from GScholar (after eliminating predatory journals, term papers etc.) TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Google Scholar mentions 114 works that cite this book. That's quite a lot for a work of this type. Many, perhaps more than half, of these 114 citations seem reliable and independent sources, so the only question (per WP:NBOOK) would be if at least two of them would do more than just passingly mention the book. I haven't gone through them, but I don't believe for a moment that this should not be the case. Also meets some of the special notability criteria for academic and technical books: it is quite clearly widely cited, and one or more translations of the book have been published. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An English translation of Quoran, the holiest scripture of about a quarter of world's population, is an academic and technical book? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. Not to mention 114 citations on Google Scholar. Hey, Ali Ünal isn't the most accomplished academic for sure, but it definitely falls within the category. I know I'd be glad with 114 cites! ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's take Haleem's translation as a benchmark. What is the citation count? More importantly, how many reviews did it get over reputed journals? If I am not wrong, it was released exactly an year earlier than Ünal's one (and has since been through three editions).The count of 114 is quite overestimated. As I said, it is about 30; I spotted a paragraph of discussion over here (p. 625) and nothing else of significance struck out. I have my sympathies for Ünal's fate (his article can be expanded by a lot) but at best, this can be merged with Ali Ünal. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This shoddy but well-documented thesis (yet to be cited by anyone) might be used to add something but PhD theses don't contribute to WP:NBOOK. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Provides more light than shade. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to clarify how NBOOK is met. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for the following reasons:
 * 1)  Just a quick search in the normal Google search, Google Books search, and Google Scholar will give you enough coverage about the notability of this book.
 * 2) The book has been translated into Spanish (El Sagrado Corán Y Su Interpretación Comentada) after two years of its publication, which increases its notability.
 * 3) Furthermore, this book has garnered some positive reviews from some academics and scholars, including: Fetullah Gülen, Bernadette Andrea, B. Jill Carroll, and others.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagle107 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am competent enough to know the web-address of Google. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You need to point at specific resource.
 * The translation is by two little known authors (1, [ 2]) from a press which is hardly known. What does that prove?
 * Book-cover reviews fail NBOOK. Find me a single detailed review in a journal.
 * Sign your posts and cease with the edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep GNG is met; NBOOK is an optional SNG that every book need not meet to be notable. I am highly reluctant to discount translations of the Quran, as I believe that would be using Islamic doctrine of the supremacy of the Quran in Arabic against the notability of translations. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to show how GNG is met. Notwithstanding that your second line makes little sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources cited above in the AfD are sufficient, in my opinion, whether you like them or not. Your combination of badgering and not understanding the systemic bias concern I raised makes you look like a bully. It's not a good look, and so far has failed to sway a single participant to your side. I strongly suggest switching tactics. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as many books cite it, and there are many entries in google books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2021 (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.