Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view of the Bible

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. So many people want to see this improved... I hope someone is willing to do the work before it gets re-AFDed. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view of the Bible

Islamic view of the Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

this article is all subheadings, has no content, no reliable sources, for that matter no sources at all, and is all origional research. In addition, it is poorly written and heavily one sided.--Sefringle 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• strong speedy keep :Those are all editorial issues. If you have a problem with content, so fix it, afd is used when the topic is un-encyclopedic. --Striver 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: as per Striver. I see no non-editorial issues here. Chovain 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, article needs significant cleanup however. ITAQALLAH 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to People of the Book and Islamic comparative religion. It is not accurate to dismiss the nom as merely "editorial" issues. WP:RS, WP:OR and possibly WP:NPOV are all critical issues. Agent 86 04:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and a total cleanup. An encyclopedic topic but needs more references and a better layout. Terence Ong 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• KeepImprove but do not delete. Itt is capable of improvement.DGG 05:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic topic, and there are a few references. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: while I have no problem with the article being kept, I do object to the reaons given by many people (starting with Striver). The resons in the nomination are not "all editorial issues": WP:OR is a core policy, and an article which is truly original research should definitely be deleted. You may of course disagree that it is OR, but to state that the nom gives only editorial issues and no reason to delete is blatantly incorrect. Fram 09:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV problems, OR, almost complete lack of sources. It might be possible to have a decent article on this subject but this is definitely not it. --Folantin 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So fix it, stubify if necesary, but don't waste the afd resources. --Striver 12:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There's not enough verifiable material for a non-expert to create a stub. An expert should fix this or the article should be deleted or (possibly) merged. --Folantin 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:V and WP:OR are non-negotiable. The whole idea of an article like this reeks of thinly disguised. POV. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Here, read this: Islam in the Bible by Thomas McElwain, its online to read. --Striver 18:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Reverted to last version by Moreschi after User:Striver removed two delete votes. --Folantin 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

wow, i just noticed, i got a message from regarding this. It was a misstake that i was not aware of, probably since i updated my watchlist and took some time to get to this vote, so some other people most have vote in between, and i didn't notice the warning of me editing an old version. Sorry, it wasn't intentional.--Striver 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and merge anything useful into tahrif and People of the Book. Beit Or 13:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Agent 86. Multiple articles on identical concepts risks getting forky. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment It's also worth noting that the talk page shows editors have been complaining about the fundamental problems with this article since December 2005. A year has passed and virtually nothing has been done to address them. I don't think poor quality pages should be allowed to drift on indefinitely. --Folantin 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs more research and citations. -Advanced 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, would be hard to make an article on this topic without it being heavily POV and without it overgeneralising about a huge segment of society (not all Muslims have the same opinions about things..). --Veesicle 18:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Veesicle, how can we label an entire religion's view on the bible, according to who? There are so many sects of Islam and personal beliefs as well as extremes in those groups that you cannot create an article without it being PoV. The very idea of making articles based on peoples views, opinions, etc is not encyclopedic. Also highly based on Original Research. --NuclearZer0 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

please see Category:Christian viewpoints. If sub-sections are needed, then we will add them. --Striver 19:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that there are other articles with this problem so we should keep all articles with that problem? If you feel those are breaknig policy you should put them up for AfD, and if you do, please leave a message on my talk page. You still have not addressed my point btw. --NuclearZer0 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, i am arguing that articles that go in depth on a subject from the views of a large religion has a solid precedences, thus, there is no problem per see with this sort of article as somebody implied. Now, if this article contains OR or something else, then edit it out or fix it or source it or whatever, we don't delete an entire encyclopedic topic due to some editorial issues. I just gave the name of a book that is more or less entirely about this subject, so spend the time building the encyclopedia, read the book and add references, or if you can't be bothered, just add the book title as reference. --Striver 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been aware of the problems with this article for at least twelve months now. Very little has been done to fix those problems. Please don't expect newcomers to deal with the mess if you can't be bothered to salvage the page. This is a terrible article with unresolved POV, OR and verifiability issues. Those who want it kept should do something to show it's worth preserving. --Folantin 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

POV? Could you give me an example of POV statment in it? Again, have you even read the book? If no, then how come you know for sure it's OR? At least addmit you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, i did not work on the article, and neither did you. Again, if any part of the article is problem... wtf, ill just cut most of it and lets see what you can complain about after that. --Striver 21:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Happier? --Striver 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using 1 source to write an article on all Islams view of the bible? That doesnt strike you as a PoV problem when the entire article is written from the view of that one author? You havent addressed the original point again, how can an article attempt to list the views of "Islam on the bible", when there are so many different sects, groups, extreme views, individual beliefs etc. The religion itself cannot have a view on a different religious text, unless it says it in the Quran, and the entire Quran is accepted by all Islam to the same degree, then its inherently PoV. --NuclearZer0 23:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just write an article on the book? --NuclearZer0 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep , Its informative and keep it as per Striver explaination. Mak82hyd 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and recreate from scratch at a later stage. While the TOPIC is clearly meritable and deserves a good article, this article in its current form isn't it. It fails a few core policies, viz. WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. The reason I'm going for "Delete" instead of just "Keep and Rewrite" is that the material currently in the article does not form the basis for a good stub or as content that can be expanded upon to become a Featured, or even a Good Article. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Folantin, Moreschi.Proabivouac 08:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I recall an article along the lines of Atheists' view of Jesus - which makes as much sense as Left-handed bus drivers' view of cowboy hats. Atheists as a group don't have a organized views of each religious figure. Individual atheists might have personal opinions but portraying that as an organized view is WP:OR at best. Does Islam have an organized view of the Bible? The article currently has two sources; any evidence that those are Islam's view as opposed to the views of the authors of the articles? Surely if a group of 1.4 billion people has an organized view it is widely documented in a large number of reliable sources that largely agree with each other. This would be the difference between delete and rewrite. Weregerbil 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, it is possible to talk of a general orthodox "Islamic view of the Bible", so I don't think NuclearZero's worries are particularly well-founded. Muslim scholars have been engaging with their Christian and Jewish counterparts in controversies about the Bible and the Koran since the Middle Ages. If the views of certain Islamic sects diverge from mainstream Muslim theological opinion on this issue, it should be possible to cover them too. But I agree with Zunaid that this article should be deleted and recreated from scratch when someone turns up who is willing to put the effort in to write a decent page (ideally using reputable scholarly sources - e.g. the Encyclopaedia of Islam?). As it stands, there's not much to save here.--Folantin 09:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Needs cleanup, but this one's definitely a keeper. Ford MF 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: original research. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Wikipidian 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Aminz 04:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, all its information is clearly explained in the tahrif article. This is an interesting subject, and I would keep it if it could be written by an expert, making it an intelligent and balanced article. As it stands now, it has to be deleted. --Gabi S. 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that article do need some work on it however, I do not find good enough reason to simply delete it. --- ALM 14:55, 27 December 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.