Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qur'anic literalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - Yomanganitalk 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'anic literalism

This was prodded. I felt that an AfD discussion is warranted and therefore deprodded. The article as currently constituted fails WP:V and probably WP:OR. Unless it can be improved during this AfD, it should be Deleted. - crz crztalk 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. - crz crztalk 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - if Qur'anic literalism entails believing every word of the Qur'an to be truth, then this is something all Muslims are expected to believe by default- so there isn't much of a reason to have a separate article about it. if, and this is more likely, the article is about taking every statement of the Qur'an literally (i.e. that no parables, allegory etc. exist) then i think some satisfactory sources should be provided confirming that this topic is notable enough to merit its own article. for now though i am not convinced. ITAQALLAH 17:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On the Fence I think this is a notable topic, I found a few references to this subject on google and an article should be written for WP, but without references, this article just doesn't cut it. The article needs major clean-up, but I don't know if it deserves deletion. Ratherhaveaheart 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article doesn't even begin to suggest what information the original editor wanted to offer which is not already covered in Ibn Baz, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, Ibn Taymiyya, Salafism, Wahabbism. Perhaps the creator of this article did not take a look at Islamic Fundamentalism, which is probably already a good start on what he or she wanted to work on. Perhaps the best thing would be for him or her to assist in developing that article. There's really nothing to merge here. Maybe redirect to Islamic Fundamentalism. OfficeGirl 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Qur'anic literalism is a very encyclopedic topic, just as Biblical literalism. And yes, literalism and Biblical inerrancy are two different topics. The article is verifiable, only issue is that this article does not have enought good sources at the moment, and that is an editorial issue, not a afd arguement. This issue is actualy very controverisal bettwen Shi'a and Salafi, Salafis insiting that God indeed has a hand (we just don't know what kind of a hand), since the Qur'an says so, while Shi'a view "hand" to mean power. And yes, we do have Christian Fundamentalism. And by bringing up Ibn Taymiyya, Salafism and the bunch, you just confirm that the topic is real and notable in those circles.--Striver 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Question: Don't get me wrong-- I think it's good to have a lot of well-sourced articles about Islamic subjects on Wikipedia so that people can learn and broaden their horizons. But do we really do justice to the Islamic topics by simply mirroring the Christian topics? The two religions are very different and must be understood differently. The problem with this article is that it doesn't actually say anything. It just points to other articles that already exist (the same ones that I referenced in the above entry). In an AfD discussion we can talk about all the aspects of the article, not just the aspects pointed out by the editor who proposed the deletion. OfficeGirl 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • True. I did not privide the cristian articles to say "look, we need to mimic", rather to say "look, they are indeed different topics".--Striver 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. that would be regarding the approach to the divine attributes specifically, not regarding "Quranic literalism" in general. it does become an afd discussion when you provide no sources, which plunges the article into doubts concerning WP:V ITAQALLAH 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • OR problem solved bellow, plenty of sources to use for expanding the article. --Striver 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Striver, read the nom. It's verifiability and OR I am concerned with! - crz crztalk 20:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Understood. Verifiability is not an issue, we know that Salfis advocate such a stance. The article is not verfied, but that does not mean it is unverfiable. The article desevers a "unsourced" tag, not a an afd. And OR is most definitly not an issue since the topic itself is Verifiable. It is very possible that the article contains OR, but the proper solution to that is to deleted the OR, going back to stub if necesary, but not to delete the article. --Striver 21:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Anyone worried of OR can read this --Striver 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment more sources:
  • "Their theology rests upon a simplistic, literal and highly selective reading of the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic traditions), through which they seek to entrap the world-wide Muslim community in the confines of their narrow ideological grasp." [1]
  • "The literal interpretations of what constitutes right behavior according to the Quran and hadith have given the Wahhabis the sobriquet of "Muslim Calvinists.""[2]
  • "Some Salafis advocate strict adherence to a literal interpretation of the Quran and the Sunna (the deeds of the Prophet and the Hadith), which they believe contain the source of all necessary guidance. " [3]

And i got that through 3 minutes of googling...--Striver 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I proposed this article for deletion because it lacks sources. It is interesting and well written (after being edited), but surely there must be something more substantive that can be included. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Query: It is well written "after being edited??" To what edits do you refer. I went to the article upon reading your post hoping to see improvements to the article that would change my position on deletion. I don't see any changes, unless you mean the infobox of Quranic articles on the side, but that is really only a list of articles- it doesn't say anything about Quranic literalism. The article itself doesn't say anything about Quranic literalism, either. It only names people and sects that are associated with the concept of Quranic literalism and links to articles already written about those people and sects. If there were anything at all substantive in the article I would change my position, but this is just a spaceholder for an idea with no actual work behind it. OfficeGirl 19:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I personaly have not edited the article for while, but i have demonstrated that there is ample material for expanding the article if necessary. So if nothing else, this article merits being a simple stub. --Striver 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added that to the article. --Striver 23:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully, the references that you have given in this discussion have been about Salafis, Wahabits, etc., and I don't see any that directly deal with Quranic literalism. I see only passing references to Quranic literalism. There is no article here. Even as a stub all I see is a proposal for a synthesis of minor published references. If there were one or two references cited that dealt EXACTLY with Quuranic literalism that would be a showing that there is a real plan and proposal for real work on a viable article. As it is there is no showing that anyone could make this into an informative article that is not original research synthesizing minor references in other published material. Show me one book or article that an editor actually has his or her hands on (not just a listing in Amazon.com) that deals directly with the topic of Quranic literalism. That'll change my stance right away. OfficeGirl 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So, an article named "Introduction to Literal Approach of Salafi in Understanding Qur'an" is unrelated to an article about "Qur'anic literalism"? I guess we see it differently... --Striver 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That article does not identify its authors. Is an essentially anonymous article that is just a few paragraphs long the only thing available? The article says two things: (1) "Salafis believe in literalism." (2) "The way that Salafis believe causes problems between Muslims". It doesn't even tell us what those problems are, whcih would be interesting. The material isn't that helpful outside of a sermon in Friday prayer service. Pity the authors of that website didn't give their names or cite other references that people could go to for further reading. We have no way to verify that they are a reliable source. They are certainly a heavily biased source. OfficeGirl 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Use the article as an starting point for investigation, i know (because i have looked) that the article is full of non-anonymous reference. Use those. --Striver 00:51, 3 November 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.