Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucailleism

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 Merge/Redirect to Maurice Bucaille. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bucailleism

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

Neologism with insufficient non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources (as such, it fails WP:NEO). The term is based mainly upon a "Strange bedfellows" Wall Street Journal article found from a cafearabica.com forum, but there is little else in terms of reliable sources providing in depth coverage of the neologism. Wikipedia is not the place to popularise neologisms. The article currently employs the term as a pejorative, all-encompassing descriptor - much of the sources used make no actual reference to this neologism at all (e.g. the Accuracy or Background sections), hence linking it in here is original research. Similarly, sources like these which are heavily cited in the article mention the "Buccaileism" or its variants not once. Ultimately, it appears to be an unnecessary fork of articles such as The relation between Islam and science and Maurice Bucaille which already possess much of the content that has been pasted here. Hence, I propose deletion. ITAQALLAH 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why preserve the article: It is a spinoff of The relation between Islam and science where one issue - whether the Quran predicts scientific discovery (i.e. Bucailleism) - overwhelmed other issues such as the development of science in Islam, the philosophy of science in Islam, etc. (This is not so much the case anymore as I trimmed the section on that issue following up the creation of the spinoff article.)

There are a great many Islamic websites alluding to the predictive miracles of the Quran (and Sunna) (i.e. Bucailleism). I venture to say most Islamic websites talking about Islam and science talk about the predictive etc., maybe almost all websites. A google search for

"International Conference on Scientific Miracles in the Holy Qur’an" (one of the promoters of Bucailleism) yields 54,800 hits. It is not talked about much in the non-Muslim world, I suspect, because it is not taken seriously. —BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (The relation between Islam and science, Maurice Bucaille, Qur'an and miracles, etc.) that some people call aspects of it Bucailleism, but to generalise the issue in a way that you and the article attempts to do poisons the well and does not responsibly reflect the nature of the topic. In fact, the article is partly original syntesis consisting of your own analysis, the rest of it is a coatrack of negative views and sceptical narrative. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• merge i think this could probably be merged somewhere but i dont know enough about the topic to say where. --neonwhite user page talk 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I started the Bucailleism article and confess to some frustration. It was created to answer Itaqallah's complaint that undue wieght was being given to criticism of Bucailleism - or what its supporters call "Scientific Signs in the Quran and Sunnah". It is a very big issue in the Musilm world with many websites, best-selling books and international conferences, and deserves an article on wikipedia.

I asked the instigator of this complaint - Itaqallah - several days ago if he has any alternative title to the article and gotten no reply. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have an alternative, because I believe most of what is encyclopedic can be covered elsewhere in the other articles we have on this topic. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete seems to contain unreliable sources and original research; no evidence of any notability of the term from reliable sources. Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think the term in mentioned in Clinton Bennett’s book Muslims and Modernity: An Introduction to the Issues and Debates (Muslim Voices on the Qur'an chapter)[1] - an academic source. --RJMY (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost a page in Bennett's book (p. 115). Section titled Bucaillism: the Qur'an as a scientific text. --RJMY (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep If Bennett actually uses the term as standard, it would make it notable, as he is a leading specialist. -- who is presently lacking a WP article, despite many mainstream published works. DGG (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Bennett does use the term (twice if I remember correctly), but not as standard. I'll check again. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I need to know which sources actually use this term. Does Cook? He is definitely a notable source but the question is whether to merge this or keep this separate so who uses the term since that is separate from those who touch the idea of the Qur'an and the big bang. gren グレン 06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge (in case the above is not answered) because I don't see evidence that this should be separate from either Bucaille's page or Islam and science... or even a general page about the trend of "science proving Islam"... but, I think it's far beyond one scholar. The term might be notable enough to mention in related articles. gren グレン 06:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cook himself doesn't use the term. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's not really clear what this article will discuss, if it's going to discuss scientific miracles claims in the Qur'an then there are better clearer titles that are not bound to Maurice Bucaille. (Imad marie (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
• Comment: Who else uses the term? Malise Ruthven in A Fury for God, Granta, 2002, p.126.
  • Notability guidelines stipulate that the specific topic (a neologism, in this case) be given non-trivial (i.e. substantial, thorugh) coverage. Ruthven mentions the word in passing. ITAQALLAH 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT: (pasted from above) BoogaLouie, it'd be best if you put newer comments at the bottom. I think the "(i.e. Bucaillism)" is the give-away. Many sources discuss the issue of scientific facts or otherwise in the Qur'an. Very few of which use this neologism. We can quite easily say in another established article dedicated to this topic (The relation between Islam and science, Maurice Bucaille, Qur'an and miracles, etc.) that some people call aspects of it Bucailleism, but to generalise the issue in a way that you and the article attempts to do poisons the well and does not responsibly reflect the nature of the topic. In fact, the article is partly original syntesis consisting of your own analysis, the rest of it is a coatrack of negative views and sceptical narrative. ITAQALLAH 21:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (pasted by BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

We can also easily delete the article on creationism and divide up the text into this and that article to avoid "generalizing" it and "responsibly reflecting the nature of the topic", but again we would ignoring a significant religious movement in need of its own article. As a second choice I would be willing to merge the article with List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles but that is also up for deletion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is precisely that we have masses of academic literature discussing creationism (using this very word specifically) and associated topics. That cannot be said about the word "Bucaillism". The belief of scientific miracles in the Qur'an might be significant, but you are attempting to categorise it all under the epithet of "Bucaillism", thereby unfairly poisoning the well, and attempting to popularise a term used in very few sources. Most of the sources used in this article mention the word "Bucaillism" not once. ITAQALLAH 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So that's your objection? Another title for the same article is OK? I'd prefer the use of Bucaillism for reasons explained here but if the only way to have an artilce is under a title such as Belief in scientific miracles in the Qur'an or more accurately Belief in the prediction of scientific facts by the Quran and Sunnah, I'd support a name change. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about the general belief and not the neologism (and associated baggage), what's wrong with Qur'an and miracles or The relation between Islam and science, which clearly seem to cover the same subject matter? If we want to talk about the word "Bucaillism" more specifically, why not discuss it under a section in Maurice Bucaille instead? ITAQALLAH 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer would be clear if you read what's already been written in the talk pages on this. Predictions of scientific discoveries by the Quran and Sunna is a very specific issue. In the 14 centuries of Islam the miracle of the Quran meant its poetic and literary perfection (maybe numerology) up until a couple of decades ago - unless I'm very much mistaken. Bucaillism also involves some ahadith as well as the Quran, which would not fit in Qur'an and miracles.

As for The relation between Islam and science, how many non-Muslims are going to guess that it includes the claim that the Quran predicted scientific discoveries? It certainly sounds like an article on the development of science in Islam, on the philosophy of science in Islam, on whether or not science conflicts with Islamic beliefs, etc.

Limiting this issue to a section in Maurice Bucaille sounds a bit like deleting the article on Marxism and weaving the text into the article on Karl Marx. There are conferences, TV shows, many websites on the alleged miracles not involving Bucaille, who must be 87 or 88 by now if he's still alive. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The importance of the topic really isn't as substantial as you're depicting to be compared with Marxism, creationism etc. Would you settle for renaming to Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an? As for Sunnah, that's really a footnote in comparison. ITAQALLAH 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an sounds like something else, like the use of sceintific techniques to interpret the Quran. I'd prefer Belief in the prediction of scientific facts in the Quran and Sunnah, or if you insist Belief in the prediction of scientific facts in the Quran --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm.. Scientific interpretations of the Qur'an refers to those interpreting the verses in a scientific manner, and the significance/importance of those interpretations. My proposal is as far as I'm willing to go. Whatever the case, the current title is in violation of notability guidelines IMHO, and the article currently has no content that cannot be covered elsewhere (probably excepting for the negative material against the "methods" Zindani and unspecified individuals) - most of it already is. Regards, ITAQALLAH 21:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This issue is being blown out of proportion. I think this article should be deleted, and/or the reliably sourced content be merged into Maurice Bucaille, where ti can also be considered in the proper context.Bless sins (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (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.