Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an (2 nomination)

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 Delete.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an[edit]

Original essay. Nothing improved after the prev. nomination last year, but wikipedia policies towards original research had become stricter at the same time. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between the Bible and the Qur'an `'Míkka 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Move to Userfy (as a contributor in the last several months to this article that you say has had "nothing improved"). There's no bias whatsoever in its presentation. I figured this nomination would be coming, however, after you mentioned it in the course of the debate over the opinionated "differences" article. Nor has it ever been an "essay". Essentially, it attempts to be a description of where, in each book, the references can be found to familiar stories (Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Jesus, etc.) common to both religions. For example, the "David and Goliath" story can be found in the Book of Samuel, Chapter 17, in the Bible, and in the second Surah (Al-Baqarah) of the Qu'ran starting at verse 251. I agree with you that readers probably should compare it with the "differences article"; there's no comparison. Mandsford 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mansford, I am surprised that such an experienced wikipedian still fails to grasp the notion of WP:NOR. In this particular case it is so very basic: It is you who is doing comparison, hence it is your research, which has no place in wikipedia. `'Míkka 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but quoting from principal sources is not "original research" Mandsford 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Quoting is OK, but the article goes way beyond quoting. Wikipedia:Primary sources: "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." `'Míkka 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - In response, I've worked at trying to eliminate any opinionated parts in doing edits; although the article is imperfect, the topic is worthwhile, and I think that it can continue to be improved. I'd welcome any suggestions for editing short of a complete deletion. Mandsford 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been looking for such an article for long time. I think this article should be substantiated with references. The similarities/differences between the great books will help followers of each book understand each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.62.250 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'd love to see an article like this on WP, this version is really original research. Sorry but that's what I see. Pig^man 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'd welcome any suggestions on improving it rather than deleting it. This is one that I started cleanup efforts on awhile back, and what I've strived for is to replace paraphrasing with source text. It's a valid topic; how can this type of article be fixed? Again, criticism accepted, suggestions welcome. Mandsford 02:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a suggestion sift thru comparison+bible+quran and identify which of them may be reliable sources. Hint: the sources must have authors recognized as reputable scholars (called "exegesists" in Christianity and mufassir in Islam, but I guess there are laity scholars of note as well.) Nobody says that this topic is nonnotable, but unfortunately you dived into the improvement of one huge piece of OR. `'Míkka 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are enthusiastic about this topic, I would suggest you to move the current text into your namespace (e.g., User:Mandsford/ B vs Q) to use as a general guideline and start from scratch from the found reliable sources, but please avoid the use of any conclusions from the saved text, because wikipedias are not in a position to validate them, which is the major issue. Please notice that there is a temptation to classify some conclusions as "evident". Please keep in mind that some people were burned on the stake for some "evident" conclusions from the Bible. :-) Jokes aside, these two books do require expertise to read (and more so, to analyze) correctly. `'Míkka 04:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'm sorry Mandsford, but I can't come up with much better than leaving exegesis to the scholars... sorry mate but delete--victor falk 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being clearly synthesis original research. The article uses an amalgamation of primary sources to create a topic that does not seem to be the subject of any significant coverage in secondary source material. VanTucky ^Talk 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This is WP:SYNTH, even if the conclusions are correct. This needs to have reliable sources discussing these similarities, which was mentioned by several people in the previous AFD, but 10 months later those sources haven't been added. Masaruemoto 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:NOR "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'"

I would point out that I didn't create the article, and I've been trying to eliminate anything that had suggested an analysis, a synthesis, or attempted to make an argument. The intent is to refer to the published sources, so that if someone were to claim that "Jesus isn't mentioned in the Koran", a cite could be made to those sections of the Koran that do make a mention. I think Mikka's statement suggests that nearly anything drawn from a book would be "original research", which seems to be the opposite of OR. If I were to refer to page 759 of the Warren Commission report to state that the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald acted alone, would that be original research? Under your definition, would I need to quote from another book that "said" that the Warren Commission Report made that conclusion? The point of WP:NOR is to avoid making statements that cannot be attributed to a published source. I don't disagree that additional sources should be cited, and suggestions are welcome. But let's not delete an article that can continue to be improved. Mandsford 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are confusing the notions of "making a summary of a source that states a fact" and "drawing a conclusion about a fact basing on a source" (although the boundary is grayish). Think about what I've just said and analyze the passage from the article I picked with eyes closed: "The Qur'an and Bible have over 50 people in common, typically in the same narratives. The Qur'an identifies Job, Enoch, Imram, and Ishmael as prophets, but they are never given a story. In the Bible, all these men are identified as righteous people but not prophets — except Ishmael who is not written of favorably." `'Míkka 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to say that I didn't write that particular portion, although I hadn't reached it yet in the editing process. The parts I have edited have been those sections that have the Biblical and Qu'ranic names (with Roman and Arabic spelling) in the title. Mikka, I appreciate the suggestion on the userfy, and have moved the article. Anyone looking at the record of the debate will be able to figure it out. It's a fixer-upper, but I think a good concept that can be presented "cold", more as an index than a commentary. I request the closing administrator to close the debate based on the move to a user page. Mandsford 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete- agree with above reasoning. OR and an unecessary and POV list. It would need to be based on (heavily sourced) views escape the inherent POV, instead it is almost a personalised essay. Scrap and begin again, preferably in another article.JJJ999 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV and more importantly WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some secondary sources on this subject must exist. I have seen a scholarly book of that kind, but it was more about differences between Muslim and Christian beliefs.Biophys 06:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an excellent religious reference for the abrahamic religions Cokehabit 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same or problems that nobody seems to be able to source. I have had this article on my watchlist for almost a year, and dispite the numerous edits, nobody has been able to add a single reliable source. This article has the same problem as the differences article, and apparently is not verifiable. Yahel Guhan 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Yahel Guhan 06:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it still reads like an essay. It also does not cite any secondary sources, only a handful of Qur'anic passages which certainly equates to original synthesis. Axem Titanium 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation; there's a good article to be written here, but this isn't it. Start over with some WP:RS. shoy 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting article (though the treatment of the two scriptures is arguably facile) but fails as original research and is basically un-sourced. I would like to see a verifiable and sourced article. Springnuts 20:17, 22 October 2007 (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.