Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasneem 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 was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasneem Tafsir[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is too short and limited context does not specify importance of the page... Content has to be increased Ajayupai95 (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more material and references. Hope that helps. Kazemita1 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A big help, at least to me, would be for you to find the source that specifically states the author's methodology and add it as an in-line citation to the last line of the first paragraph. A section on how the work has been received would be great as well - praise and criticism, reviews, that sort of thing. I'm not up on my Quran-related scholarship, so I don't know quite how such works are generally reviewed, if at all. But more detail is good. Remember, this is an article about the book, not a copy of the analysis - that's what the book is for. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful hint Ultraexactzz. I went ahead and added a review section from a new source. I also included inline citation.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Short I can deal with; that's why we have stub tags. I can't judge the independence of the references, but they each seem to discuss the work in more depth than a simple "This exists, buy it" manner. The text needs some work, but I'll see if I can pick at that a little. Caveat - this is based on the google translation, in part. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all given sources seem like promotional material, likely from organizations to which the book's author is connected. I don't see the notability factor here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the article and now there are two inline English citations from independent sources in the article. As for notability, check the review section that I just added. You can also take a look at the author's page in English Wikipedia or -if you are speak Farsi- see theinterwiki link for this book in Farsi Wikipedia.Kazemita1 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good work on Kazemita's part on the fast sources, though the article itself could use a rewrite for aesthetical purposes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2013 (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.