Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsafatuna

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 speedy keep/withdraw as bad faith nom. The other English name "Our Philosophy" is much more notable than "Falsafatuna". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Falsafatuna

only 632 Ghits. Non-notable book; entry is possibly vanity. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Withdrawn. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Looks pretty widespread. Needs to be cleaned-up anyway; they "to be continued" at the end isn't exactly encyclopedic. Devotchka 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can't decide a vote. Book looks notable, and not vanity (where is that from?). However, whole article looks like a copyrighted synopsis (especially with the 'to be continued'). Chuck^(척뉴넘) 00:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete Not notable and looks like it was lifted from an ebook. If it is notable it will come back inactual article form. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How can notibility be determined with something like a foreign book.? Google hits will bring up appropriate English pages, but that's all. Plus 632 hits is a lot, isn't it? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 01:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if it's not copied from somewhere else. —Mets501^talk 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Same article also exists at Our Philosophy (Falsafatuna). Oddly, it's tagged with a {{hangon}} even though it was never tagged for CSD. Clearly, we do not need two copies. Fan1967 02:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Devotchka 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - at this point, I don't see any verifiable sources. Also, it reads like a book report. Wickethewok 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The book itself is online [1]. The question is, is the book notable? Clearly the author's family is, but I have no way of knowing about the book. Is it a significant work in Shiite beliefs? Fan1967 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep by AGF on Parihan's part, but if becomes a book review then it's original research. Give it more than a day though. Teke 22:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep per Teke. Thetruthbelow ^(talk) 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The book's author Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr is certainly notable as one of the more prominent Iraqi Shiite clerics, jurisprudents and ulema of the 20th C., and much of that notability rests on what he said, wrote and philosophised about (rather goes with the job description). Accordingly, significant works of his such as this book and his work on economics (Iqtisaduna ) are likewise notable, just as they are for works of other religious and philosophical figures. As for its content, I do not believe it to be OR, since it seems only to summarise the book's content and main points (which is what other articles on books mainly do), and is readily verifiable since as pointed out above the book's text is available online in english. It's not really a 'review', and there are no grandiose claims, opinions, or other unsubstantiable mentions that I can see which would push this into OR. I don't see a reason to suspect they are not the contributing editor's own words either. The other oddities can be attributed perhaps to the contributor's unfamiliarity with wikipedia conventions, and I take the 'to be continued' tag as the contributor flagging that they intend to expand on the article. I agree that the prose does need a good copyedit and the overall style needs to be less idiosyncratic, but these can presumably be addressed.--cjllw | TALK 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs some cleanup, but it looks like an attempt to summarize a significant work by a notable author. Fan1967 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per CJLLLW and WP:BITE. Also I continue to be amazed by nominations that seem to have come from people who have not followed the links in the article. How can anyone read the al-Sadr article linked to from this one and determine this is a vanity page, let alone think its nn enough to do all the work for an AFD? Extraordinary puzzlement here. Hornplease 07:49, 27 May 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.