Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Quran Project

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I must agree with the argument regarding the lack of sources. There are many useful websites -- and many of them do not have a Wikipedia article for lack of sources. Usefulness is not a criterion. No prejudice to recreation if sources (including non-English sources) are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Quran Project

[edit]
Online Quran Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable website. I knew there werent any references but I still gave the creator of the article some time to get references but they do not exist as the website is not notable. For notability guidelines about websites, see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Please provide rationale of keeping the article, if thats what you decide to do and if you do that, you must tell people why it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (web). The article creator can always userfy it and move the article back when notability has been established. I gave the author a lot of time. I put in a notability template on April 20 and let him know what he had to do. The website simply is NOT notable even though its a good resource. Wikipedia does NOT have articles on non-notable subjects. I'm shocked that admins like DGG and JClemens are wanting to keep the article while giving no evidence of notability. Added later: If this article is a keep and notability has not been established, I will consult with the closing admin on how to proceed since we clearly do not keep articles on non-notable websites. Please also notice that all the references in the Notes section are empty 'phantom' references that give a false impression i.e., none of them are real references which talk about the website in any detail (the requirement for notability) asides from perhaps simply linking to it. In some cases there is no link or mention at all. All the content in this article is unsourced WP:OR. If there's no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources then the website is not notable no matter how good a resource it is. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no you don't. IAR closes are quite possible, though generally a free ticket to a DRV. Note also, however, that the nominator and primary opponent of this article's existence has been blocked multiple times, with a warning in the fall 2009 block that a subsequent block would be indefinite. So, the chances of this editor actually being able to file a DRV if he doesn't get his way appear to be somewhat less than 100%. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for spending the time to investigate my personal history which is not relevant here. Thats why people start over with a clean slate so no one can use their history against them (and I have only 2 blocks which were valid blocks if you had checked a little more). The issue is not me getting my way but establishing notability for this article. Atleast once I've nominated something for deletion and closed it myself when notability was established. Cheers. PS, could you please announce this deletion to more avenues so we can get some more input? I wont hold it against you). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm what is there to say. Its quite sad that all the worked I have put into this article is nominated to deletion. I can't figure out why the 'History' section was reverted, even if it did not comply with the notability..? I will send the raw text to the Online Quran Project if they wish to make use of it; (!if this article is going to be deleted!). Best regard, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just how it is here: a topic has to be notable enough, but I gave you a link on your talk page where that article can go as it is so your work will not be wasted. If they dont accept it, let me know, I know of a few other websites which will be happy to take your work. I reverted your changes because those were just external links and not real references. External links go in the external links section and we also dont link to small websites. The rest of the things in the History section were original search (see WP:OR) so I took that out. Basically once again, you need significant coverage from multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article you send me and search wikipedia for some inspiration, here I found the article on Yamli. As a inspiration of there 'History' section I contacted the people behind the Online Quran Project (OQP) and wrote a similar section reflection the history of OQP. So either both 'History' section are right/wrong for respectively OQP and Yamli? Anyhow if the site need to be deleted in corresponding with the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia, then it need to be deleted.. You are more than welcome to send the information to the sites you know. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Yamli and OQP and any other article, all text must be attriuted to reliable source. We cannot simply enter text because the main question is: who wrote it? See WP:OR. For Yamli, there's only one reference in the history section and that has stopped working. Everything else looks like OR. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I too cannot understand why the history section was removed, for it is the context of the project. The notes given are not all references--some are explanations, some are links, but this is a matter of format and not a reason for deletion. It is perfectly acceptable at Wikipedia to use footnote numbering for notes. Much of this is direct observation, and that is acceptable as a primary source, just as I could include what I am describing, just as I describe any other reference book or website. With respect to the history, we do ultimately remove material that is unsourceable, but we do not delete it immediately if merely unsourced unless it is contentious --and I see nothing the least contentious or unlikely here. Matt, am I missing something here that is actually controversial or even dubious? I have therefore used my own judgement, and restored these sections to enable us to better judge the article. It is usually considered quite wrong to do this sort of a removal, and then nominate for deletion, because someone could use the material as a hint for finding sourcing. The project is clearly a major one--but I am going here by internal evidence, especially a check of the numerous English translations which are included. I'm not aware of another site where this can be found--let alone the ones into other languages That several different translations of choice--including those in different languages can be simultaneously displayed for a single verse is another excellent feature. It does not include all the translations indicated in our article List of Translations of the Quran, but it includes most of the recent ones. It cannot be that there are not references to a project of this magnitude, and we will need to look for them. In the meantime, we could merge this article as it stands to the List of translations. We need not worry about losing the material, for if it should be --unwisely in my opinion--deleted, I will userify it. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "notes" were being used incorrectly. For example:
"Matt57 visits Wikipedia very often. <ref>http://wikipedia.org</ref>.
This was what was being done. Notes are there for a reason, they are references which are talking about the article in a significant manner. There was none of that in any of the links/refs I removed. It was all WP:OR. You're welcome to revert the changes I made but you will find there's no significant coverage in any reliable source for this website and that is the requirement for inclusion here. Yes it is good information but it is all unreferenced because references dont exist and hence, its not notable and therefore, it should not be present on Wikipedia. One can create an unreferenced "about" page for any small website for that matter.
"that is acceptable as a primary source"
No sorry, an article that is solely based on a primary source is like me creating "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" and I could put up a Geocities website and that would be deleted in about 0.5 seconds here - and you know that.
"but we do not delete it immediately if merely unsourced unless it is contentious"
Alright, I ask you then: If I created that article "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" and I wrote in there that 'Matt57 was a great guy who worked hard', these are not contentious statements so could that too never be removed and would the article stay? Also I gave the creator of the article about 10 days to find references and I let him know of these problems so he had time to come up with the references. He tried something and it was obvious and I knew before hand that references didnt exist for it. This was simply not a notable website.
I'm shocked that you are an administrator and are defending an article which has NO significant coverage in ANY reliable source. Whats going on? What is your motive for the defense of this article? Why should "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" be deleted while this article should be kept? Interesting.
"The project is clearly a major one"
So are many other websites. The fact that you think the project is major, is of no importance. Once again, Wikipedia:Notability (web) is the criteria and you dont seem to be aware of a very core principle here on Wikipedia: multiple significant references from reliable sources are the only thing we go by when we want to decide whether something deserves its own article or not. Are you aware of that, DGG?
"including those in different languages can be simultaneously displayed for a single verse is another excellent feature. "
Once again, that has an importance level of exactly 0.00%, if Wikipedia:Notability (web) is not being satisfied.
"In the meantime, we could merge this article as it stands to the List of translations."
That is fine and is a smaller problem than what we have here: a non-notable website having its own article. Even then, if that "List" article mentioned the QOP and QOP has no coverage in multiple reliable sources, someone could challenge and say "this is not a reliable website and is not worthy of mention". Again, thats a smaller and different problem. Here we're deciding if this deserves its own article or not.
"I have therefore used my own judgement, and restored these sections"
No, you didnt do anything. You're welcome to restore anything though if it is sourced. Remember unsourced content can be deleted if its veracity is challenged due to a lack of a source. You saw that I deleted unsourced information here and nominated it for deletion and for some reason you've decided to defend it for some non-rational reason, while not caring about what the main problem here is: Wikipedia:Notability (web). I mentioned that reason in my nomination above. Since you have said the article should be kept, could you now tell me how the article fulfils this criteria? I'll wait for a response to that. Thank you.
My own thoughts now: Yes this is a good project with lots of translations and so is a good resource. However, Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that are notable. If we want to decide whether this deserves its own article or not, it has to fulfil Wikipedia:Notability (web). Do you disagree? Please remember to tell me how this website meets this criteria. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This seems to be an excellent and extremely useful resource. I am quite surprised that it appears not to be notable. Perhaps the main problem is that the reliable sources writing about it are mostly not in English? The creator may not be aware that reliable sources in languages other than English are acceptable to us. I searched for Arabic and Turkish article titles, but unfortunately I did not find anything that looked like a reliable source discussing the site. Perhaps the project is also known under a slightly different name? Hans Adler 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its a good resource and a collection of Quran translations however there are no reliable sources that mention it. I can safely say non-english languages also do not mention it. And no, its not known under another name. There are tonnes of other useful resources websites but Wikipedia doesnt make pages on them if they are not notable. Being a good resource and being notable are two separate issues. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I rarely give IAR reasoning in AfD debates, I think this one suffices. Cross-religious understanding certainly promotes human knowledge and world peace, and I don't see that the encyclopedia will be diminished by having an article on a possibly non-notable website that is clearly trying to improve global knowledge of an unquestionably notable religious text. If it's useful, the sources will materialize eventually. If not, then let's revisit this debate in six months. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have argued similarly if I hadn't realised that this article is 2 years old! Hans Adler 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JClemens, you're now the 2nd admin here who has wanted to keep this article. "Cross-religious understanding certainly promotes human knowledge and world peace". That is of no importance if the website does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web). It will be interesting to see what the closing admin does. Whoever they are, if you decide to do a keep, be sure to tell everyone why it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) because if it doesnt, I'm going to start putting articles for websites for my aunts and uncles too. I'm shocked at admins like DGG and JClemens who are blatantly ignoring Wikipedia core policies. The site is not notable, trust me. I gave the creator a lot of time to establish notability. NOTABILITY - its a core concept, please remember that, especially if you are an administrator. There are COUNTLESS number of websites that talk about the "notable" Quran but we dont have articles on them if they are not notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please chill out and be civil. Notability is important, but not overriding. Hans Adler makes a much better point, and makes it much better than you do. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being civil. All I'm asking for is proof of notability. Notability is a core policy, not an optional policy. The policy says: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not be included in Wikipedia.". If you think notability is not important and is optional and can be ignored at times, can you give me just one example of a long-standing article which is here but not notable? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok people were being sensitive so I took out some of my comments. Could you now please give some proof of notability. I have a feeling this will not end it and I will have to go the long way and nominate it for deletion again (wasting everyone's time) and then it will finally end up in a delete, which is what should have been the first time. I say that because I know there are no references for it and hence its not notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no multiple reliable sources that talk about this website in a significant way. Simply linking to a site does not make it notable (assuming those links exist). And this:
first website to offer a Qur’an text with full diacritics
is not a valid criteria for notability. The criteria is simple: multiple reliable sources have to talk about the website in a significant way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete. I guess this project deserves more attention, but as it doesn't seem to have received this attention even after two years, I don't see how we can keep it. There isn't really anything much we can say about it without doing original research or just relying on what the site says. The article is currently linked from many other Wikipedia articles. I think that in most of these an external link to the site is appropriate because it provides the full text of the Quran translations discussed in those articles and makes it very convenient to compare them with others and the original. Hans Adler 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There isn't really anything much we can say about it without doing original research or just relying on what the site says. "
Thank you for seeing the obvious and what others who want to do a keep have failed to see. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Usefulness' is not a criteria here, Wikipedia:Notability (web) is. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:20, 11 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Online_Quran_Project&oldid=1069209245"