Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciences in the Qur'an

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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sciences in the Qur'an

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

An admirable essay, but simply beyond Wikipedia's limits on original research. – Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references refer to the scientific concepts involved, not the article's claims, quite clearly WP:SYNTH. It reads like an internet argument, or essay, overtly promotional and possibly in violation of WP:NPOV. I agree that it is more like an essay than encyclopedic content. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoah. The grandmother of all essay-type article attempts, and chock-full of apologetics for literal Qur'an interpretation. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Science in the medieval Islamic world, as Uanfala has done for Sciences in The Qur'an (with an upper-case "T"). I agree with the comments here and on the writer's talk page: it's a well-written essay, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that mostly as a hassle-free alternative to deletion. Sure, the target article is close enough, but readers looking for content about sciences in the Qur'an (as opposed to sciences in the post-Qur'anic Islamic world) will not find any relevant content there. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Another similar article would be Islamic attitudes towards science. —Paleo Neonate – 02:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous original research. I don't see the benefit in redirecting or any content worth salvaging. Unfortunately the creator seems to have just fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this article was originally created at Sciences in The Qur'an (uppercase t). Haywi copied the content to Sciences in the Qur'an (lowercase t) after the original page was turned into a redirect by the nominator. I've merged the two page's histories to maintain the attribution. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsalvageable essay, pure OR and synthesis against policy WP:NOR. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the author. With all due respect to the contributors to this discussion, and thanking them for sparing their time. I accept my ignorance in WP regulations that the article is being an original essay, but I think with a twist i.e. not exactly to the definition . It touches on an important issue which concerns many intellectuals and average readers alike ,by balancing the issues of faith and science without delving into controversial religious or worshipping issues, nor being partial to either. It is a mini-encyclopedia of various sciences in a non-jargon simple language accessible to people with little or no knowledge of the subject who make the majority of the WP readers.--Haywi (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I suspect that others may have written on this topic, but I don't see any references to their work there. So I agree that this looks to be all original research. A transwiki to Wikiversity is quite a possibility. Otherwise this article needs to start from scratch reporting what others have said. It is also a non-neutral point of view, but that problem is minor compared to the other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Natureium (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Deomonstrates a complete misunderstanding of concepts like "quantum biology"; scientifically nonsensical statements like "Trifact of life are; water, chemicals and energy"; selective interpretation like "three barriers that protect the fetus" identifying three anatomical barriers, but neglecting to mention several others that make it add up to a larger number. Also rife with links to disambiguation pages, so much so that if this were not deleted, I would move it to draft space until those were repaired. bd2412 T 18:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dear 'bd2412', but is the article less worthy than showing WP readers your many tea shirts!? on your user page... have a good day --Haywi (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as sad as it will be to see all that work go, it's definitely WP:OR. Makes me glad I didn't approve the page in WP:NPP. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons pointed out by Alpha3031 A ntv (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see anything really encyclopedic, certainly fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As BD2412 points out, it also fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Smmurphy, you are a walking encyclopedia...I had a look at your contributions...how do you manage to find time to eat ,drink and sleep...or do you have ghost writers? Shakespeare did have--Haywi (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm haunted by many ghosts, I do wish they would write for me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly oblige --Haywi (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear WP:OR. It's not the only problem but sufficient for removal. gidonb (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2017 (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.