Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible und Muhammed

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The way I count it out, the votes are as follows: Delete: 11 Keep: 5 Delete and Merge: 2. Counting the 2 Deletes and Merges with the Deletes, that come to approximately 70percent in favor of deletion. I find the arguments for Deletion very convincing. The article is not well cited, and checking of what citations do exist by others has raised questions of the credibility of the sources cited. I do not find the arguments for Keep nearly as convincing. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible und Muhammed[edit]

A very, very confusing article formerly known as Islam in the Bible, which at least made some sense as a title. Hard to do this justice, but basically it seems to be about a genuine encyclopaedic topic, Islam and Christianity, that has been spread over a walled garden of articles including Bible und Muhammed, Islamic view of the Bible, Islamic Christianity studies and others, most of which bear the hallmark of User:Striver. This one, though, is so full of mostly unintelligible unsourced and/or original research and/or exotic forms of POV that I' wouldn't know what parts could be usefully merged somewhere. Sandstein 11:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename back I dont know who or why they reneamed it, but they shouldent. Can a admin rename it back to Islam in the Bible? Ill try to find sources, its not origina reaserch, i spent a lot of time in this field reading articles in sites like answering chritianity and the book Islam in the Bible. I made mental notes of everyting, but ill go back to the sources and link them. Otherwise strong keep. Thanks for sharing your concerns.--Striver 11:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that both the book and the websites are included in the article. Ill try to give more specific reference, but it will take some time, im on dial up (problem with my adsl) and its a narrow field, but its not original research, try reading the links. --Striver 12:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, i didnt make the Critique section. some other guy did. I cant source that, so feel free to delete it if you think it does not belong there. Or maybe move it to the talk page. I didnt delete it since i didnt want to upset anyone. --Striver 12:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was made by the same guy that renamed it to the bad faith new name [1] [2]. --Striver 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 17:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename back to Islam in the Bible per Striver. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 17:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename back to Islam in the Bible. mikka (t) 18:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While reading this afd, one is given the impresion that nothing in the article is sourced. I want to clarify that that is not the case. The uncourced statments can be removed as a last resort, that does not warant the deletion of the entire article. --Striver 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, sorry, but I took a look at the websites that are linked to as "sources". And let me tell you, I don't think it's a good sign if one source chosen at random begins: "The following is an email I received from brother Silent Wisdom" and then rambles on in terrible English about something that, while not quite clear, consists largely of quotes from the Bible and the Qur'an trying to show how they connect. Or another whose title is, in what I assume is 150 point size type, "The lie of the crucifixion!". Indeed, all "sources" that are not Bible verse links go to [3], which at first glance is one individual's ranting website about how the Bible is supposed to prove that Islam is the true religion.
Don't get me wrong: I am completely in favor of having an article on how Islam views Christianity, or on why Muslims think the Bible proves that Islam is the true religion. But this rambling, unintelligible mess of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR violations is not it. Or in other words, if we don't have the Wikipedia term of art "religioncruft" already, now we have it. Best regards, Sandstein 19:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
those perfectly valid comments belong to the articles talk page, they are not a arguement to delet the article, maybe to remove some parts of the article. Oh, i see the reference of the book [Islam in teh Bible] is deleted, ill readd it. --Striver 21:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename per striver. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, definately a fork.--Jersey Devil 19:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & rename: Per above. Ombudsman 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The very title "Islam in the Bible" to which some editors have proposed to rename the article back is horribly POV, as it reflects the Muslim POV by stating as fact that there is indeed some Islam in the Bible. This view is ridiculous for any Jewish, Christian, or secular scholar, who all believe that Islam emerged only in the 7th century, much later than the Bible assumed its current shape. Pecher Talk 21:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The title reflects the existing POV (not to be confused with wikipedian's POV, the one forbidden by WP:NPOV). Reporting a POV is perfectly valid in wikipedia articles. mikka (t) 21:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem with the title is that it presents an existing POV without attribtuion. Had it been called "Islamic view of the Bible", the would be no problem about it. But hey, we already have an article Islamic view of the Bible, why have two? Pecher Talk 20:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it pov? The aritcle name does not say there IS Islam in the Bible. It could just as well be read "Islam [is not] in the bible" as well as "Islam [is] In the Bible".--Striver 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, in fact it could not be read that way, don't be disingenuous. If the article is kept, another name would be appropriate. Esquizombi 22:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean is that it does not state that Islam is in the bible. Its like talking about "cookies in the jar", it is a valid frase even if the jar is empty. One could say there are cookies in it, and a critique could counter that there are no cookies in it. --Striver 23:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "cookies in the jar" would in fact mean cookies are in the jar (any grammarians here?). Anyway, I'm not sure it's a good analogy, because a jar (particularly a cookie jar) would be expected to have cookies in it at times, whereas the claim that islam is in the bible is a controversial one. Esquizombi 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete We also have Islamic view of the Bible and lots of other religioncruft floating around. As stands this article is a horrible mess, much like all of the others. kotepho 01:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this article named in German anyway? -- Mithent 01:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because User:Blubberbrein2 moved it to that title. kotepho 01:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even all German. The German for 'Bible' is 'Bibel'. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article needs to have reasonable references, otherwise it's original research. The sources, as mentioned above, are almost all spurious. If it is properly referenced, I don't see why it can't be incorporated into Islamic view of the Bible (which incidentally, also could use a cleanup) without a sub-article. -- Samir (the scope) 05:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Islamic view" is a wider topic. While the one in question may be incorporated, just the same it may be kept separate. that's how wikipedia works: subtopics are spawned into separate article, and voce versa is done only for pitiful stubs. mikka (t) 05:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My point is that there is little that is not OR; the rest can be incorporated if referenced -- Samir (the scope) 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, then Delete this article and others into Christo-Islamic; this unnecessary categorization of information into sub articles is just that: unnecessary. I'm saying that the article should be deleted after the merge because of the misspelling of 'and'.joturner 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that i dont try, i get so many other things on my hand now thank to Jesey Devil. But ill get to it as soon as things calm down a bit, or you could read the book Islam in the Bible and help me get the page referenace, the who book is about this topic. --Striver 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not OR, please read the book "Islam in the Bible" that is included in the references. I want to work on this article, but had simply not had the time due to a user going on a afd rage [4]. He have been heavily critizised, see his talk page, but the damage is done and i needed to put my energy to save those 20+ articles. Again, read the book or wait till i can get time to work on this. Or help me by googling out some sources. --Striver 15:59, 19 March 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bible_und_Muhammed&oldid=1087582800"