Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir)

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 keep. Kimchi.sg

The Meaning of the Qur'an (tafsir)

This article is empty of content. While it is a stub about what may well be a notable, even signifcant book, I feel that there is wholly insufficient material on the page to assert that notability. One sentence, a couple of external links, an infobox and an author's link does not feel suficient to assert notability. Having articles as placeholders is not what wikipedia is about.

The article needs either to be edited to describe the subject and assert its notability, or be deleted Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Now just sufficient for me to move my opinion, see below. I'm not withdrawing the nomination because I think the peer review process is valuable and shoud run its course, but I would not have made the nomination with the xtra information that is now available. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: the author himself is entirely notable with a very positive reputation in Islamic circles. It is simply the article about this book that I see as non notable in its current empty form. I am making this addendum in case of any errors in understanding of my nomination rationale Fiddle Faddle 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless expanded to share actual information about the book. The current stub is insufficient despite the author's notability. BTW, what the heck is (tafsir)? Is that part of the title or some unneeded disambiguation qualifier? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • see Tafsir for a full definition Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for no context. A rewrite or expansion would be acceptable and would make me change my vote. --Coredesat 10:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep why dont people just use their time to expand a admited notable book instead of using their time decunstructing the encyclopedia?--Striver 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not whether the book is notable or not that is under discussion. It is whether the article on the book is notable (or asserts notability sufficiently and in a referenceable manner). I see you have worked on the article to start to seek to assert that notability. For me it is not enough to change my nomination yet. For others it may be sufficient. This is the entire purpose of this nomination: Either to have the article improved by one who has the knowledge to improve it, or to have it deleted. It is not rhetoric that preserves articles, but good work. Thank you for starting that work. Fiddle Faddle 11:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep current version, but expand if possible. This really illustrates why it is a bad idea to leave a substandard stub article out there. Remember Striver, the general audience of Wikipedia probably does not have the background or knowlege about Islam to recognize when a book covering it is notable. As the originator of an article covering a topic where there are probably very few experts involved in en.wikipedia, the onus really falls on you to flesh out these articles and justify their notability. You can't expect the average user to come along and even have an idea where to start expanding an article like this.--Isotope23 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I just get defensive when people start afd'ing stuff. I would appreciate if they could just ask me to expand it with a threat of a afd.--Striver 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Changed my vote because notability is now asserted. --Coredesat 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Although I proposed this I see enough work done now to make it a valid stub and assert just enough notability to remain. Unsure of ettiquette as proposer, so am adding my vote against my proposal here. Looking forward to a better article as time passes. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete same as the above.DB empty, worthless, and shouldnt be here.At the very least, it should be Merged with the author's page.--AeomMai 19:15, 27 June 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.