Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic view on the human corpse

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 Islamic funeral. NW (Talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view on the human corpse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research paper Travelbird (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep The general topic is certainly notable. Is there another article that gives information on it? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem here is that the content is largely WP:OR Travelbird (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that parts of the text may be copyvio, although I cannot find the original source, a possible giveaway is the sentence: "Muslim jurists allowed dissection of human bodies and autopsy, provi-ded the relatives' consent is obtained" (bolding is mine) which looks like an imported hyphen as the typo is not a plausible one. Assuming that the content is not a copyvio, I think the topic largely overlaps Islamic death rituals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified original research. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamic death rituals, salvage anything not too OR. --JaGa^talk 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. I have already pointed the author towards the Islam Wiki. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be WP:OR and possible WP:CFORK of Islamic death rituals. Nothing to merge, and I don't see the value of a redirect as a search term or a need to preserve any history here. (And, ow, the overlinking hurts the eyes. :P) --Kinu ^t/_c 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Islamic funeral Someone65 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Islamic funeral; if nobody can be arsed, redirect it and note on the Islamic funeral talk page Shii (tock) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note the article appears to have serious problems as has been pointed out, but it is also 5 days old and has been up for deletion for 2-3 days already. The 23rd was last Sunday. If we have a weekend editor unfamiliar with our processes, they would hardly have time to react to this deletion discussion. Something needs to be done about the lack of citations, but the material is promising. Aquib (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
  - 1) WP:OR The author seems to know what he/she is talking about. However this is essentially a research paper and a such not permissible. Even if it seems as though the editor knows what they are talking about, we have no way of verifying it. To keep up Wikipedia's standards at least a little bit, we cannot allow original research here.
  - 2) Deletion process: The article was originally WP:PRODed. The tag was then removed and it was put up for deletion here. By the end of the process there will have been 10 days for someone to fundamentally re-write the article. Unfortunately we don't have enough people working on new page patrol to actually monitor hundreds of pages for a couple of weeks to see what becomes of them. So we have to insist that if a new article is created, it must pass Wikipedia's quality standards within the period of deletion review which lasts a minimum of 7 days. Travelbird (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (ctd) I am attempting to contact the author for sources. -Aquib (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My initial reaction was 'Oh, Gawd!' but I mightn't be allowed to say that. My second reaction was, 'Hey, this feller knows what he's talking about'. Unfortunately, the style is a little dogmatic rather than being encyclopaedic. Also, most if not all is already in both Islamic funeral and Islamic death rituals - out of curiosity, why do we have the two of them anyway? I agree with Sjakkalle about that hyphen - I spotted it when reading the article before reading the discussion (my normal practice). It usually indicated a copy and paste from somewhere using fully justified text; left justified text like this should not use hyphenation. [takes professional hat off again] As to the three articles, Islamic funeral is the most NPOV, Islamic death rituals is less encyclopaedic in my view, and perhaps anything of value here ought to be incorporated in one or other of those two - whichever is chosen. Is there a process for deciding which of two rather than a straight delete or not? Peridon (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that I liked the use of 'ascendants', but I've delinked it because the target appeared to be some astrological stuff that was hardly likely to be the intended result. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the problems with the article are, they can be fixed through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. The subject itself is significant and probably notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already got two on the subject... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'd see those as articles about closely related, but distinct subjects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. All of these seem to be to do with when someone of an Islamic persuasion dies. They approach it from a different angle and use different styles, but the basic manual looks to have the same instructions. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, these should be merged into two articles (or one). --JaGa^talk 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.