Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty ■ 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of Science
Is this non-notable compared to Rolfes Robert Reginald Dhlomo, or compared to Sesame Street, Season 35? Maybe its nn compared to Sand River (Ontario)? Oh, now i got it, it must be nn compared to Gamaliel (Qliphoth)! Lets not forget Galactic Pinball. --Striver 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable debate, not even any external links or references to mark its notablility. Another page created by User:Striver--Jersey Devil 20:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN, V. No documentation of any notability, or when this happened, or where, or what was said. One of the supposed participants, William Campbell, just links to a DAB page of two dozen William Campbells, none of whom appear to the one mentioned here. Fan1967 21:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. --TM 21:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * delete. does not assert notability of subject. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Moe Aboulkheir 04:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. --Ter e nce Ong 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was it really neccessary to mention who the original creator of the article was? Debate seems fairly notable as many Islamic online carry the video of the debate, or debates as their seems to be several parts. I have added in several generic details (date, location, event). Article was created on the ninth and AfD went up on the tenth. While I generally don't enjoy Striver creating articles and waiting for an AfD to come up before expanding them, I'm going to once-again assume good faith and hope he does, though I can understand why others will not given Striver's history. Nonetheless, this is about the article not the user. Seems fairly notable. Pepsidrinka 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Pecher Talk 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable debate. Also Pecher you can't vote twice so please remove one of the votes. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 17:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep bad faith nom, see Betty Kelen and Muhammad: The Messenger of God (book), he is stalking me and afd'is anyting i touch. This should establish notability: full transcript, On the Answering Islam page, examinethetruth.com, full video download, over 1000 google hits on exact search, buy it, debates on forums, faithfreedom.org mentions it and i found some analysis of the debated by some atheist guy, but i cant find it now... --Striver 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to be encyclopedic. Stifle 00:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Smerge to Zakir Naik, despite the lack of evidence of notability of this debate. Esquizombi 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Striver, yes - and please remember even you didn't bother to write a proper article about it. Esquizombi 01:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, bad faith nom or not, this single debate does not seem notable enough for a page, even if expanded with references to Christian evaluation of the debate. JGF Wilks 12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the Sand River is notable, lovely, and has great fishing. -- Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  01:32, 14 March 2006 (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.