Talk:The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 August 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) on 29 August 2021.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Islam: Religious texts Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts.

Book-cover reviews

@TrangaBellam: per WP:BRD, you should have opened a discussion here at the talk page after TheEagle107 reverted your bold removal. That being said, I agree with your argument that book-cover reviews are not reliable, and should be either explicitly attributed to the book cover (as you did in your last edit) or left out entirely. Moreover, even if we could properly source the reviews to the place where they were published, it would be WP:UNDUE to fully quote them rather than to just mention them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: Thank you for your valuable time and effort in trying to resolve this dispute. I agree with your suggestion about attributing book cover reviews to the book cover. Sorry for any inconvenience anyway. Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheEagle107, in that case, why did you restore the full reviews? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GenericUserName57, your addition is not from a WP:RS. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(courtesy pinging Genericusername57) @TrangaBellam: I believe that Islam & Science, now called Journal of Islamic Sciences (see its website) is a reliable source. See, for example, its citations in Google Scholar [1]. Yes, it seems to be written from a religionist Islamic perspective, but both its editor (Muzaffar Iqbal) and its authors (among whom one finds the likes of Seyyed Hossein Nasr [2] and Syed Nomanul Haq [3]) sure have the necessary scholarly credentials. Restoring the info on the review accordingly. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]