- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result waskeep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator.Ron Ritzman (talk)23:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An-Nisa, 34 (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log •Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)
This is an Article about one specific Quranic verse.
It's Which, in itself, is not notable,
important no more special than any other verse, thus I believe this verse is
not encyclopaedic.
Theactual subject of controversy isdomestic violence (esp. in Muslim world). This verse intrinsically is in not an object of special significance, not even within Islam.If that is the case be informed that there are 6000+ verses in Qur'an and 100+ controversial verses. (depreciated at 06:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC) by Brendon ishere)
I personally do not think these verses require individual pages.
Reasons for the proposal of deletion (added at 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)):
- Just because a particular subject (e.g. “Domestic Violence in the Muslim world and its relation to Islam”) is popular/controversial,does not mean every detail (e.g. every Quranic verse or Hadith) associated with it is within the project scope or requires anIndividual page. In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The goal of this project is to createan encyclopedia as opposed to a dictionary (dedicated to translate words from one language to another) with infinite breadth. There is wiktionary which is the "lexical companion to Wikipedia." Wiktionary welcomes all editors who wish to write a dictionary.
- As perWP:GNG - "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than atrivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
- As perWP:CSD A7 there is "No indication of importance". The subject of this article is not important or significant (i.e. An Nisa, 34 is not inherently significant butDomestic violence is). This Verse An Nisa, 34 (Sura 4 verse 34) is not a subject of controversy.
People try to interpret that verse in a million different ways (they try to explain away the connection between“Islam and domestic violence in the Islamic world” and absolve Islam from all the blame).But within Islam it is believed that Qur'an is the "clear truth and the best explanation"[Quran 25:33], a revelation that was sent down "to make everything clear"[Quran 16:89] and the "eternal word of Allah"[Quran 56:80]. So clearly, the Qur'an is taken asincontrovertible truth in the Islamic world.
Then, what is this article discussing about? Mere interpretations. That is also unneeded because the verse ispretty clear about its approval of wife-beating(Sura38:44 even describes the procedure to beat one's wife).
Any arab will be able to tell you what the verse says. This clarity doesn't leave much room for personal interpretations and POVs. (source) Also read the point just below that complements this one.
- As perWikipedia:COATRACK (also perWP:CFORK andWP:POVFORK) - As stated above, the actual subject of controversy is “domestic violence in Muslim world and its relation to Islam”. And that subjectalready has a page dedicated towards discussing it(inclusive of the common interpretations of this verse). Thus, this article is quite evidently an inherently biased "coatrack article" (whose main aim is to only provide Islamic POV since there are notmany non-muslim and Arab scholars). Thus this article has no other option but tocherry-pickfacts, since there are literally millions of "scholars" who have steadily opined on “domestic violence and its religious permissibility” in past, some of which are true and others are abject fabrications. Thus this article will eventually foster a specific POV (be it for or against Islamic injunction).
In short, this article is about a Qur'anic verse. And that should have been the end of it.
Everything else will be people's personal opinion on the translation (probably predicated upon conflicted interest) and interpretation, making the state of its neutrality inherently anunfixable or insurmountable issue. Besides, why repeat same thing in two different articles? Why keep two articles more or less about the same topic?
I think it's really germane to note that wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy of a particular POV, or an Arabic-Englishdictionary, or an online exegesis of Qur'an (tafsir).
- As perWikipedia:NRVE - The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must beverifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability (that proof is totally absent so far).
A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. No subject is automatically or inherently notablemerely because it exists: The evidence must show the topicitself has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.There are over 1.3 billion muslims and various critics of Islam, so it's easily demonstrable that every verse of the Quran as received "significant coverage".
But is it really the verse that's significant or is it the Qur'an or any other subject where the verse might be mentioned? The main topic of controversy (i.e.domestic violence in Islamic world) already has a page. Hence, the bald claims of "notability" or "significant coverage" don't tell usanything as to how thatverse merits an individual page.
Note: PerWP:SUPPORT - AfDs arenot about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount.
Brendon ishere19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PerWP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - The nature of Wikipedia means that youcannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Brendon ishere06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I haven't checked out all the references, but this verse appears to be the subject of much commentary and debate, and therefore notable. If you have POV concerns, this isn't the right venue to air them.DoctorKubla (talk)19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This verse is apparently the subject of considerable interest. "An-nisa 33" gets 7 Google Books hits, and so does "An-nisa 35". But "An-nisa 34" gets 2,830 Google Books hits. --Metropolitan90(talk)19:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PerWP:HITS - A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine isno guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally referable via the internet. Search engine tests may return results that are fictitious, biased, hoaxes or similar. It is important to consider whether the information used derives from reliable sources before using or citing it. Less reliable sources may be unhelpful, or need their status and basis clarified, so that other readers gain a neutral and informed understanding to judge how reliable the sources are. BTW, not many of these hits are reliable andcan very well be blatant lies. Brendon ishere06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there are six thousand verses, we probably need 6,000 articles. Even the non-controversial ones have attracted elaborate comment over the past centuries, very little of it on sources on the web. Similarly for the other sacred books. In any case, this particular one is clearly controversial, and there is significant commentary even in modern English language sources--not that such sources are necessary. DGG ( talk)23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "If there are six thousand verses, we probably need 6,000 articles." - Are you saying that in jest? Wikipedia isnot an online exegesis of Qur'an (seetafsir).
"In any case, this particular one is clearly controversial" - No. This verse is not controversial per se, Quranic approval ofdomestic violence is (it has a page dedicated to it). That's all the more reason to think that this article is clearly acontent fork or acoatrack article. Brendon ishere07:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Islam-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk)02:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- “A notable verse of the Quran” - may not be an encyclopaedic subject. There are over 1.3 billion muslims and various critics of Islam, so it's easy to say that every verse of Qur'an as received significant coverage. But is it really the verse that's significant? or the Qur'an or any other subject where the verse is cited? Hence, that doesn't tell us anything as towhy do we need anindividual page for this verse or any other verse from Qur'an alongside the pages dealing with the main subject of controversy. Brendon ishere09:03, 6 May 2012 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
