Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling

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 debate was No Consensus, Keep. Delete 5 Keep 5, 50% for deletion, not enough consensus to delete. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (only one questionable source used), possible fork. Created by User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete as per User:Jersey Devil -- Oarias 03:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC). Changed vote to MERGE, Striver you have to understand that unfortunately there is a certain Anglo-centrism to Wikipedia. Instead of arguing with people, make the article easier to understand by explaining (in laymans terms) what is a Hadith who is Umar and what is the importance to Islam. I suggest that the articles be merged at first, worked upon by whoever has knowledge of the topic, and then be put back as separte topics when they are ready. Just some constructive criticism please don't bite my head off, it's just when it comes to a topic of Islam, you can not assume that people reading these articles will have ANY clue about even the basics. -Oscar Arias 01:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: You don't have to re-create what already exists in other articles, but a short sentence or so for each of the mystery terms would help non-Islam readers tremendously! -Oscar Arias 02:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bite your head of? How about giving you a big hugg? Thanks a lot for giving some contructive critique of what CAN be done instead of giving a rant on "striver wrote this, delete now!". Again, i really appreciate your advice and are going to implement them right away, in hope to improve the article to the point of you chanching your vote. Dont hesitate to on telling me how i can improve it further if i didnt improve it enough. peace!--Striver 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, look forward to it! -Oscar Arias 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed vote to KEEP. - While it still needs some work, your recent edits make it a reasonable stand alone article. Will change my vote on other articles if you do the same there. -Oscar Arias 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, i love you in the most platonic way! --Striver 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominator afd's since i created it, he does not know anything about the article, or even hadith knowledge. He claims the sources is questionable . THe source is Sahih Bukhari [1], the umber one most trusted book in Sunni Islam. No much different than saying the bible is a questionable source. User:Jersey Devil has a problem with me personaly and is consuming wikipedia time in the proces, that is all. I suggest he does that witout claming Sahih Bukhari is "questionable" sources.--Striver 12:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. Lacks context; context is provided in parent articles, no point in adding context thereby creating copy of other articles. A maze of zillions of context-free article about religious trivia is an unhelpful way to inform a reader. Weregerbil 12:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added conext, but it needs grammar fix and sourcing.--Striver 13:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Matthew 1:5 for a example of how a single bible verse can contitute a entire article.--Striver 13:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "Merge/delete" to "delete" as the whole group of articles keeps getting more and more about "Shia view" trashing the "Sunni view" soapboxing. Weregerbil 13:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you do agree that the topic is both verified and notable? In fact, so much that it is used in the Sunni/Shia arguments? If you came to that conclusion, why are you voting delete? If the article is pov, it needs npoving, not deleting, and i need assistance with the article, i cant to perfect articles on my own. --Striver 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree, and please do not try to put words into other people's mouths. There already is a huge article where you explain the virtues of the Shia religion against the Sunni religion regarding Umar. It's not useful to have that spill to even more individual articles to give you more soapboxes to promote your bias and trash competing religious factions. Weregerbil 17:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per remark that Christianity is exploding here beyond all limits: see the enormous Category:New Testament verses. The article reads quite informative now. mikka (t) 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Pecher ^Talk 21:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, delete per Sahih Bukhari AND Sahih Bukhari are questionable sources? --Striver 21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It is certainly verifiable and it does seem to be a topic of debate. It would be better merged somewhere else instead of standing alone though. kotepho 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Cleanup It appears as an important point in Islam. However, the shia view appears to be unreferenced, and the view of one wiki editor in this section who adheres to shia counts as original research, not a valid reference.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, i need to find the reference. I just hurried to add the text and controversies so as stop people from calling it non notable. I need to go through http://www.answering-ansar.org and some other sites to find the links to the reference. --Striver 01:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. In fact there were several citations. If you had a question about the source, the corresponding talk page should have used. However, this article should not exist, nor should other hadith articles. Despite Striver's example of Matthew:5 or whatever verse he keeps flaunting as precedence, I still don't think each individual hadith needs an individual article. Perhaps Zora's suggestion to create a Hadith cited by Shi'a article should be considered and these hadith could be merged their, instead of having thousands of individual articles floating around. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. We're missing a whole layer of articles necessary to make individual hadith articles worthwhile. There is no way that will help users systematically understand these hadith in context which might explain the importance of this. Basically, I agree with Pepsidrink and Zora. gren グレン 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "layers"? Why not create the "layers" instead of deleteing sourced, verfied and notable material? --Striver 23:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update in accordance to Oarias suggestions, i have uppdated the hadith to be more "western friendly". I hope he is pleased with the resuls, and i also hope this is what Grenavitar was leaning towards. Please give me more feedback on how i can improve this article, and please remeber that there is no single place that this hadith can be merged to. Peace--Striver 02:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am kinda starting to see Strivers argument about these hadith articles. I believe that if we can have hundreds of entries for Bible chapters and verses (not to mention hundreds of Pokemon cruft articles), then we should have ALL the hadith entries as well. (I don't care if it's 10 or 10000 articles, we've already set a precedent with Bible entries) Just for the record, I currently consider myself agnostic, I believe that God is unknowable and everything written about ALL religions is pure speculation, but that is strictly my POV. I believe Wikipedia should be NPOV when it comes to these religious topics and should have the teachings of ALL religions (I don't care if it's Christian, Islam, Judiasm, Taoism, Buddhism, Hindu, whatever). So I say bring them ALL the hadith's in if you want, but please make sure that if you do please make sure to keep NPOV if there are different interpretations between Shi'a and Sunni (and other) factions. As I mentioned above about Anglo-Centricism in Wikipedia -- to prevent votes like this from coming up in the future make them understandable by us Infidels. Otherwise someone (like I did initially) will vote to delete articles where they have no "frame of reference" (this is probably what Grenavitar was talking about when he mentioned "layers of articles" a few votes up. Anyhow, I've said my oberservations the rest is up to the Wikipedia community! --Oscar Arias 13:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should only have the articles if they are notable enough. The Bible entries are being paired down and there is even an Arbcom case involving them. Two wrongs don't make a right, so only make the articles if they are actually needed. kotepho 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, nobody is going to bother bringing all hadith here. --Striver 01:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the whole reason Striver is putting these articles up is that there is some differences in interpretation between Shi'a and Sunni on these Hadith, thus making them notable. Kinda like discussing different interpretations of Bible verses by Catholics and Protestants.--Oscar Arias 16:02, 16 March 2006 (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.