Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific miracles of Qur'an

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. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific miracles of Qur'an and subpages

Aims to prove scientific foreknowledge in the Koran. Delete unless completely rewritten (using neutral point of view), and renamed. Delete all subpages, which are mostly empty anyway. - Mike Rosoft 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: Afd is not a place to present ultimatums, you cannot say improve this or it will be deleted. One could argue that by calling for article improvement you are in fact recognizing that it should exist.--Pypex 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

However, I can call for scrapping most/all of the current content, and creating a proper article instead. Claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Koran (and Bible) may well deserve a mention in an encyclopedia, if presented in the proper way, but I hope we can agree that the current article is useless and needs to be disposed of. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would that be disposed of so that people could build on its existing content? This isn't a one strike and your out system. I don't quite see how "needs improvement" became equated to the "needs to be deleted for XYZ policy violations" we so frequently see.--Pypex 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To say that this article needs improvement is a gross understatement. In its current form it simply has no place in an encyclopedia, and no article at all is better than this one. I don't think it would be of any use as a basis for an actual entry, either; but if somebody (you?) wants to, I won't prevent him. But the condition is that there must be somebody interested in it. Until/unless this happens, there is no reason to keep it around indefinitely. (After all, it can always be undeleted should there be any need for it.) - Mike Rosoft 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the subpages and probably delete this as well per WP:NOR unless it is extensively rewritten and cited. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Although the article seems to be one sided but with all the preaching about islam going on wikipedia it seems only fair to allow this article to balance things out. The article seems to be written in good faith to provide an alternative point of view and most of its contents are verifiable facts. It has been just initiated and will be completed. Give it a chance [hassan Khalid]

I started this article and the sub-articles as a teamwork project, not as an individual work, I have invited lots of pepople for completing the work. I'm sure many people are interested in completing this work.Arash Bikhoda 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as OR and POV. Neutral POV means within an article. You can't create an article to "balance" others (Be Bold and go fix the others! And "project" by its nature implies OR. -Jcbarr 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --kingboyk 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR and NPOV Avi 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and lack of neutrality. --Kinu 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all the others, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Stifle 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:43, 8 February 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.