Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad

Add links
Source: 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 all. The arguments for keeping are

WP:NOR, which are strong policy arguments, and the level of sourcing in the articles (ranging from poor to nonexistent) serves as ample prima facie confirmation of the OR claim. Sandstein 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Hadith of the demise of Muhammad

Hadith of the demise of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This appears to be a classic case of what Wikipedia is not (i.e.

OR since no secondary source is cited) on a hadith. → AA (talk) — 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The following related articles should also be considered:

I guess you could compare it to a verse in the Gospel and basically each of these articles is a "verse" with OR commentary by the article creator. Regarding the nomination, I have tagged each individual article for AfD and if the wording on this page is incorrect, I apologise but feel free to correct as required. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What grounds to you have for claiming that my contributions are OR? That's quite a big statment, and i hope you can back it up. --Striver - talk 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it was then, had no secondary sources and referenced one of the statements to a single primary source (Hadith is a primary source - not secondary). The views section (with a single sentence for each view) has no references and reads like an interpretation of the narrations. Statements of such ilk are considered OR. Aside from that, as has been mentioned by others here, the titles of the articles themselves are OR. The introduction to most of these "Hadith of..." articles states "Although the narrations are prominently quoted and referred to, they do not have any formal name..." (which itself questions the notability of these) but every article IS given a name thought up by Wikipedians. Perhaps some of these events are notable and the article should be on the event itself but having articles purely on the basis of explaining a hadith or a verse of the
Qur'an is a task for Wikisource. → AA (talk) — 10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course is a there a reference to a primary source, when quoting one. That is standard, just look at any news article, they quote the newspapers, not some secondary source book. And of course is the view section an interpretation of the narration, what should it else be?! "View" and "interpretation" are almost synonymos. And no, just because i did not provide a source at that time does not make the text OR: it just makes it unsourced. There is a huge difference, one is breaking WP rules, the other simply needs more work. Please do not confuse this issues when addressing my contributions. And yes, we do have lots of other very very notable articles were the title itself is the target of hotly wikipedian debates, one example being the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It has entire sections in the talk page were wikipedians are arguing what name they should make up for the article (over 10 suggestions!), since it does not have any standardized name. By the same logic, are you questioning the notability of that event`? And yes, the title disclaimer is informative, honest and accurate. Wikisource collects primary sources, wikipedia documents views, events and such - this is the perfect place for this article.--Striver - talk 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references cited in
WP:NOR are satisfied and them move onto the next one and as others have suggested, there's nothing to stop that even if the current articles are deleted. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't bring up 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot to make any points about sources, i brought it up to void your claim regarding "non-standard title = non notable". I might have assumed the notability of some hadith and not thoroughly explained them, and this can of course be improved. Being a Muslim, i might have assumed notability were it is not self evident in the view of a non-Muslim that is not versed in Islam. Regarding "hadith that the Shia and Sunni disagree on but as a theme, they are not notable in general", you are self evidently mistaken, controversy = notability, specially when talking about the two biggest denominations in the worlds next largest religion (billion people) having a controversy about the second source of Islam itself - that is as self-evident as it gets - unless you have an agenda. And of course is there volumes of books written that use this hadith in their argument, and each having their own view of them - and that is what the article does, present the hadith and the views on them, something that this specific article does more clearly now that i have contributed to it: it quotes two scholars, two books, and two sites and there is a lot more to quote, i did all that in just a few hours research. I don't get why you are so keen on deleting this, it's is obvious that they are notable, verifiable and sourcable, even if it maybe is not done right now - but having an incomplete article regarding has never been an argument for deleting.--Striver - talk 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, unlike last year's airline plots, these sayings have been around for over a millennium. If they are such central components of Shi'a Islam, why does it fall to you to gather and name them? If this goes any further,you may go down in history as one of the most important exegetes in the history of Shi'a Islam.Proabivouac 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, the Shi'a vs. Sunni view sections of which you are so fond - and "vs." is the appropriate term here - are original research, as is most every other word in these articles besides the quoted sayings themselves. The parts that aren't OR are just quotes.Proabivouac 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that i have backed up the section with references, and expanded it, are you prepared to admit that you did not know what you were talking about when you claimed it was OR?--Striver - talk 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, sources such as these[1][2][3] are hardly credible. Question, do any of them use the term, "Hadith of the demise of Muhammad?" Google shows nothing,[4]. The very titles of these articles are your original research.Proabivouac 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is credible sources for the purpose: documenting normal Shi'a views. It maybe a questionable source for neutral academic medieval history or rocket science, but for the purpose quoted, that is documenting Shi'a views of that particular hadith, it is a near perfect source. Regarding title, see my response above.--Striver - talk 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All references need to be quoted from
reliable sources. Using polemic/apologetic websites to show divergence in views on hadith where over 1000 years of scholarly discourse exist on anything really notable, goes to prove that these hadith aren't notable as if they were then there would be scholarly debate that could be cited. → AA (talk) — 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Bro, you expect me to source religious text, but not use religious and apologetic websites? C'mon. That sites contain online books that have been cited - what more do you expect? Quoting New York Times? The hadith have been included in the very first hadith collections,
Sahih Bukhari, and there is volumes of commentary written about that source in it self - will you be happier if i link to one of those Arabic commentaries? Oh, that would also be linking to a site... maybe if just wrote "for reference, see Arabic commentary on Sahih Bukhar", would that make you happy? The content of the article will not be altered dramatically, the stated views are correct, and i added references in English, readily available online. --Striver - talk 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Striver, just because something appears on a Shi'a website doesn't make it "the Shi'a view." It's as if we had Jack Chick creating articles about the "Christian view" of various bible passages, and assuring us in all sincerity, bro, trust me, this is the Christian view, then pointing to websites that confirm this. If these websites are where you got your information (someone mentioned copyvios above) that's just another compelling reason the articles should be deleted.Proabivouac 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Somebody argued that the hadith should be merged into the main article. That is simply not practical, the main article simply glosses over the most important parts of his life, not even going into details of large event as the battle of Badr. It is only natural to have several articles with different scope when dealing with the biographies of a person that Michael H. Hart called "the most influential person in history". --Striver - talk 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep substantial cleanup required for most, but it should be an absolutely trivial matter to demonstrate note for these.
    talk 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Working on it... --Striver - talk 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. Edward321 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone here would object to the articles being recreated if and when they are well sourced. Remember, sourcing isn't just a technicality, but the only way we have to verify that the information we're disseminating is accurate. Even the titles appear to be the inventions of the creator. As it is, we may be misinforming - even wildly misinforming - the public about traditional interpretations of Islamic scripture. If Wikipedia says something false about something so important, we harm readers, and degrade the encyclopedia's reputation by casting doubt upon everything else one might read here. To risk this is unethical, and trumps "I find this potentially interesting." A Wikipedia which doesn't get that is a Wikipedia which should be shut down.Proabivouac 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title objection addressed above, that "delete when in doubt" is applicable to a living person's biographies (since they can sue), not this kind of articles. And no, i don't want to disseminate misinformation, studying Islam is one of my main interests, and letting people know about what i have read is something i value. If you find any particular statement i made questionable, then please by all means, contact me and i shall try to provide a source and better information. Much information and lots of sources is optimal, a summary lacking sources needs work, it is not a grounds for deleting. You are familiar with the concept "stub" are'nt you? Wikipedia is much better of having stubs for this kinds of articles then having nothing.--Striver - talk 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything on Wikipedia must be
WP:N. In the cases of these articles, that does not appear to be the case. → AA (talk) — 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I just did, did you miss the books, scholars and websites i quoted? What is the problem, explain it to me more simply, i don't get it. You expect an entire book written about this sole event, and nothing more? And if anything more is added to the book, then this hadith would not be it's "primary theme" and hence non-notable? I did quote books and scholars that use this narration in arguments, and even go as far as bashing other scholars view on this hadith - what more do you want? --Striver - talk 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an argument of why you believe they are notable. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all are origional research, however in the future, please nominate them individually, and not as a group in case that they may improve.--SefringleTalk 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all are orginal research. Harlowraman 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all view. They are all, to some extent, sourced and developing concepts from sources is not OR. If there are are POV concerns, and since I am not familiar with the subject matter I cannot comment on this, then the articles should be appropriately tagged for improvement requesting the addition of balancing material. In my view the better approach is fixing/improving not deleting. Bridgeplayer 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is that there are thousands of these narrations and verses of the Qur'an and there are disagreements on many of the them between the Shia and Sunni. This does not alone make the hadith itself (as opposed to the event that is being narrated) notable. I think an analogy could be given from the Bible. We wouldn't expect an article on every verse of the Bible with a commentary on views expressed from different Christian/Jewish sects. → AA (talk) — 17:48, 15 August 2007 (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/Hadith_of_the_demise_of_Muhammad&oldid=1137895872"