| Revision as of 18:37, 8 February 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:06, 11 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' per verified and real consept that i personaly are strongly familiar with. Peacher, why did you not bother to ask more sources, if that is your problem, instead of wasting wikipedia resources? --] 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep''' per verified and real consept that i personaly are strongly familiar with. Peacher, why did you not bother to ask more sources, if that is your problem, instead of wasting wikipedia resources? --] 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''keep'''. This shouldnt be even up for vote. It's a popular philosophical idea in ].--] 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''keep'''. This shouldnt be even up for vote. It's a popular philosophical idea in ].--] 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong keep''', a speedy one if Pecher thinks twice and removes the nomination. ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep''', a speedy one if Pecher thinks twice and removes the nomination. ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong Keep''' as per above. ] 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Strong Keep''' as per above. ] 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' seems not to be OR, although some citations of the debates of centuries are absolutely necessary to properly demonstrate that it isn't. I would suggest that the respondents consider toning down their criticisms of Pecher, as they come dangerously close to being attacks. The nomination was made in good faith (it's not 'illegal' by any stretch of the imagination, as ] is one of the foundational reasons to delete) and haranguing the editor is rude. ] 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' seems not to be OR, although some citations of the debates of centuries are absolutely necessary to properly demonstrate that it isn't. I would suggest that the respondents consider toning down their criticisms of Pecher, as they come dangerously close to being attacks. The nomination was made in good faith (it's not 'illegal' by any stretch of the imagination, as ] is one of the foundational reasons to delete) and haranguing the editor is rude. ] 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' but add citations wherever possible. That it is strange to non islamic eyes does not mean it should be deleted. It meets all criteria for an article here. I think it would be excellent were the nominator to withdraw after re-reading the article. ] 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' but add citations wherever possible. That it is strange to non islamic eyes does not mean it should be deleted. It meets all criteria for an article here. I think it would be excellent were the nominator to withdraw after re-reading the article. ] 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:06, 11 February 2023
- 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 nomination was Speedy Keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Teleportation in Islam
Reads like a jaw-dropping piece of original research. Pecher 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nom. Pecher 21:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher. I took the tag off. It's best that you first learn what it is before slapping tags and calling it original research.--Zereshk 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Afd templates should never be removed, and personal attacks, like "Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher", should never be made. Pecher 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your putting an Afd tag on the article was illegal to begin with. It doesnt fall within any of the guidelines given by WP:DP. I repeat, first know what the article is about before slapping tags on them.--Zereshk 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Afd templates should never be removed, and personal attacks, like "Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher", should never be made. Pecher 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ignorance is a harmful thing, Pecher. I took the tag off. It's best that you first learn what it is before slapping tags and calling it original research.--Zereshk 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per verified and real consept that i personaly are strongly familiar with. Peacher, why did you not bother to ask more sources, if that is your problem, instead of wasting wikipedia resources? --Striver 21:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep. This shouldnt be even up for vote. It's a popular philosophical idea in Islamic philosophy.--Zereshk 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, a speedy one if Pecher thinks twice and removes the nomination. Editors should attempt to know about a subject before nominating an article about it for deletion. PT 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as per above. Dionyseus 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seems not to be OR, although some citations of the debates of centuries are absolutely necessary to properly demonstrate that it isn't. I would suggest that the respondents consider toning down their criticisms of Pecher, as they come dangerously close to being attacks. The nomination was made in good faith (it's not 'illegal' by any stretch of the imagination, as WP:OR is one of the foundational reasons to delete) and haranguing the editor is rude. Ziggurat 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but add citations wherever possible. That it is strange to non islamic eyes does not mean it should be deleted. It meets all criteria for an article here. I think it would be excellent were the nominator to withdraw after re-reading the article. Fiddle Faddle 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but do some work on finding sources that are checkable by the majority of readers (this being the English Misplaced Pages). This is "tayy al-ard" (literally "folding up of the earth"). Spelling variations in the transliteration make it hard to Google, but a few sources can be found by Googling "tayy al-ard" or "tayy al-ardh" (see also Google Books ). It'd be worth mentioning the Sufi equivalent, "tayy al-makan" = "folding space" (I assume one of the many Arabic influences behind Herbert's Dune). Tearlach 02:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- What do you know, it was Muslims that were first with the time-space continuem after all :P --Striver 02:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but cite sources in English. 68.163.217.35 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as encyclopedic. — Reinyday, 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can we speedy keep this now? --Striver 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to "Tai al-ardh", as the English translation is a clumsy approximation and an unknown lemma. Should be deleted if it keeps the present amount of OR. Proper sources needed per WP:RS. --tickle me 20:12, 11 July 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.