Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Book of Interpretation of Dreams

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 keep. Black Kite 09:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Book of Interpretation of Dreams

This article consists of merely the title of the book, its author, and its list of 59 chapters. While Ibn Sirin is certainly a notable figure, I'm not sure that this book is, especially since I could not find any results for a book under this title by Sirin when I did a Google search. There is a book by Sigmund Freud with the same title, but it does not seem to be related in anyway. Because I have not been able to find any sources on this title, I do not believe it is notable. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, Freud's Interpretation of Dreams is the classic, the original, in the genre, if you will. This, I can't make heads or tails of. I'll assume that the title in the footnote is the book that talks about that book--but that's second-hand, not good enough, and the main article on Ibn Sirin doesn't add to it. Besides, a list of chapter headings is irrelevant. So, if there had been anything of substance, it should be merged; since there isn't, I'm all for deletion. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the usual titles for English translations are either "Interpretation of Dreams" or "Dreams and Interpretations" The Arabic is تفسير الأحلام الكبرى المسمى منتخب الكلام في تفسير الأحلام، (Tafsīr al-aḥlām al-kabīr al-musammá Muntakhab al-kalām fī tafsīr al-aḥlām), according to WorldCat. The article on the author describes the book and gives references to some of the many works on it in English--I'm sure there's an even wider literature in Arabic. It seems from the article that the man is noted for other things as well, but that this is by far is best known thing about him. So the question is a possible merger. However, I see from the article on the man that the current view is that it may not actually be of his authorship. so, since the article on him needs total rewriting for coherence and to eliminate apparent copypaste, anyway, best to transfer the references here and develop the article. Freud of course is a different tradition. DGG (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Ibn Sirin is an important figure in the history of oneiromancy, and this is the chief work attributed to him. Obviously a more meaningful synopsis than a chapter heading listing might be desirable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article leaves a lot to be desired, like some context explaining that this was written in the 8th Century. However, it appears that Ibn Sirin's book is still referred to more than 12 centuries later [1]. The book itself is notable enough to be its own article, and the list of chapters is consistent with a discussion of the subject. I think that there's room for this one to be added to. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It leaves a lot to be desired, but AFD is not
Cleanup. If it wasn't for Freud's title I would have suggested a redirect to Ibn Sirin. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Meets
WP:NOTE and has good potential for expansion. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2008 (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.