Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic 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 Redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic Feel free to transfer some content there if necessary.--JForget 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Arabic bible

Arabic bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to be WP:OR on the Qur'an, the term Arabic Bible seems quite a westernised interpretation of the Qur'an so it might now even be a redirect. SGGH ^speak! 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This looks like an essay rather than an encylopaedic article. Googling on mentions of "Arabic bible" on Wikipedia also turned up Final testament, by the same author, with similar tone and lack of sourcing. A quick look at non-Wikipedia Googlable sources suggests "Arabic Bible" may more commonly be used to refer to the Bible used by "Christians in the Arabic world", so I'm not immediately convinced of its value as a redirect to Qur'an. --Sturm 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete OR, essay, no way to reference. This is essentially a neologism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. Seems to me as OR. I don't know any reference which uses the term "Arabic bible" to refer to the Qur'an. This article should refer to the Arabic translation of the Bible, and so it would be most appropriate to redirect it to this link. Eklipse (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Redirect. This looks like the clear choice. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. Not even any justification for a redirect. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete essay and redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic. Seems the best way to help the Googlers. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Bible translations by language#Arabic. You can see my reasons above. --Sturm 21:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The term bible is not restricted to the Christian Bible. It is an English term that refers to any sacred book/holy scriptures. As such, there can be many bibles: Christian/Greek, Muslim/Arabic...etc. they are all bibles. Just as there are many 'chairs' i.e. a red chair, a blue chair, a big chair..etc. they are all chairs. It is a language issue and the word bible can be used to refer to many scriptures as long as you clarify what bible you are referring to i.e. Arabic Muslim Bible or Greek Christian Bible.

A quick search in Collins Dictionary reveals that "Bible" has two meanings. First, the sacred writings of the Christian Religion, and second, any book containing the sacred writings of a religion. However this term is exclusively used for Christian writings and never for the Muslim ones (a quick check at Google and Google Scholar should prove it). Therefore as an encyclopedic reference, Wikipedia should redirect this page. Eklipse (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as the Tanakh is referred to as the Jewish Bible (see wikipedia), it is linguistically accurate to refer to the Quran as the Muslim Bible. Linguistically, this article is 100% correct. There is nothing non-factual about this article. The link between the Tanakh (Hebrew) & Jewish Bible (English) confirms the accuracy of the link between Quran (Arabic) & Muslim Bible (English). Would you rather that the article name is changed to Muslim Bible, for instance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.3.4 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that there is an entry in Wikipedia for both Jewish Bible and Hebrew Bible. Both these entries are correct. I understand that from a socio-cultural point of view, it may be strange to see the entries Hindu or Buddhist Bible due to the strong association of the word Bible with Judeo-Christian scripture, but that is not the case with Islam due to the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity (see Wikipedia entries Islam and Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Monotheism). It is accurate to use the terms Arabic Bible and Muslim Bible in the English language when referring to the Quran. It is not accurate to use the the term Arabic Bible when referring to the Arabic translations of the Christian Bible since the Christian Bible is not, by origin, an Arabic scripture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.3.4 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Whether it's a technically correct term is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not here to introduce new terms or change people's ideas and this is OR. Matt Deres (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not OR, just uncommon and rejected by many (what is Wikipedia's policy towards uncommon issues that are rejected by some people?). The article has been signigicantly refined since last time for your consideration. It remains a work in progress as references are added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Strong delete - Arabic Bible means the Bible in Arabic, as used by Arabic speaking Christians. The author is trying to hyjack the term as a synonym for the Koran. A redirect to Bible translations would also be acceptable. I have no dount that there are umpteen articles on the Koran already, so that the present text does not need to be preserved in any form. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Warning What if you are trying to hijack the term Arabic bible as a synonym for the old & new testament only? And it seems you are succeeding, when clearly the Quran is an Arabic bible, by origin and by definition. Abrahamic biblical text already exists in Arabic and your position towards that fact is total disregard. It is the only language other than Greek and Hebrew that holds original Abrahamic biblical scripture, and should thus be treated at par with them. Or do I sense some arrogance/bias here?

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.