Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable Muslim reports

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. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Muslim reports

It is likely that this will be moved to 'List of Hadith' if kept. Please take this into account when voting.

The title of this article is problematic, its scope is potentially enormous, and there is no NPOV criterion for choosing which "reports", or Hadith, are notable.

The title is problematic because "Muslim reports" is a very poor translation of "hadith". Hadith, or formally collected oral tradition, is an accepted, widely used term in Islamic studies. The user who created this article seems to prefer NOT to use Arabic terms of art in discussing Islam-related articles. Anyone searching for articles about hadith would not find this one.

But there are bigger problems than the title. There are many thousands of hadith. Bukhari and Muslim, the first two books of the Sunni canon, contain over 17,000 hadiths. There are four other Sunni books, as well as Shi'a collections. Is this article going to contain them all? The creator of the article says that only "notable" hadiths should be included, but he offers no criterion for notability. All the hadiths he has selected so far have to do with the long tradition of Sunni-Shi'a polemics, and prominently feature hadith used by the Shi'a in attempts to prove that the Shi'a are right and the Sunni are wrong. (The editor is a Shi'a.) However, hadith cover hundreds of other topics as well. If we included the most cited hadith for each of these topics (such as salat, zakat, hijab, inheritance, etc.) we would have an article as long as a book.

I asked the creator to consider picking another title and narrowing the scope of the article. An article on Hadith from the Sunni canon frequently cited by the Shi'a would be manageable and perhaps even useful, since the Shi'a editors keep listing the same hadiths, over and over, in various Islam-related articles. However, the creator -- with whom I have not been getting along -- refuses.

If someone else could persuade him to change the title and narrow the scope of the article, we could drop this whole AfD. Can anyone do so? Zora 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep

Yeah, whadever:

List of aircraft engines of Germany during World War Two
List of aircraft carriers of Russia and the Soviet Union
List of aircraft carrier deployments
List of airport circulators
List of airports in Israel
List of airports in the Greater Toronto Area
List of airship accidents
List of alleged conspiracy theories - compare it to this one :)
List of angels in Enochian - wtf is that?
List of Amtrak stations
List of Anti-Revisionist Groups - now, that is a small, narrow list, isnt it?
List of apes
List of aquaria
List of aquarium diseases
List of mathematicians - literaly thousands
List of archaic musical instruments
List of Arkansas county name etymologies
List of Art Deco buildings in Tasmania - List of what?
List of armoured fighting vehicles of World War II - yeah, that is small list...
List of Armenian Patriarchs of Constantinople
List of Australian air force bases

And that is a random and small sample from A in Wikipedia:List_of_lists/uncategorized. I wont bother with B-Z Try to make a list of list, there you have a big one...

Here is another thing for you: List of article created by User:Striver and nominated for deleting by User:Zora that did not get deleted:

Zora said that i have only included narrations that are relevant to Shi'a Sunni discutions. Well, that makes them notable, doesnt it? Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia, we dont delet lists only since they could be big. In fact, just the fact that it could become big makes it notable. IF it gets to big, will create breakout articles. Regarding notablility and NPOV, its the usual WP rules.

I did not choose "Hadith", since it would exluded non-"hadith" material, for example "Sira", letters and sermons. --Striver 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Delete. Per nomination and the creator's response, this list is meaningless. Lists exist to be found, and with a vague misleading title it doesn't fit the bill. As an example, List of airports in Israel is a good list - but if it was called List of Long Strip of Level Land on Which Flying Machines Can Land in a Certain Middle-Eastern Country, it would be useless. Flyboy Will 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Rename to List of notable Hadith. — RJH 21:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment i just renamed it to List of notable hadith, even though it narrows the list.--Striver 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, you broke the AfD link on the page. If kept it likely should be moved. However, don't move during the AfD and break the link to the AfD. gren グレン 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did include a correct link to it, but if you insist...--Striver 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the link at first but it be part of the box. It's just bad to move an article while up for AfD. If you want to put on the top of this page that it will likely be moved to list of notable hadith so that no one deletes this because of its name then feel free to. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, given that no criteria of notability appear to have been established. Palmiro | Talk 03:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and delete most of the individual hadith entries. This is completely unmanageable. There is no systematic way to choose what should be on this list given. There is no systematic naming or scholarly precedent that is being followed for this. I understand the inclusionist impulse. I really do. However, it cannot be used for this article. Renaming to "List of notable hadith" is not enough. How do we set notability in an academic matter? Are Shia hadith inherently less notable because there are fewer Shia? How is the naming of the individual hadith done? At last resort I'd deport the various hadith to wikisource if their translations are in the public domain. An article like this removes any academic credibility from wikipedia. It exemplifies our bias problems and violates no original research in so many ways. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gren, you know that many of this hadith are very prominently used in many articel around in Wikipedia. In this articles we can elaborate on their credibility, how they are sourced, whar different scholars have said about it and so on... We can drop "notable" and move it to List of Hadith. I mean, we have a List of schools, and given that i do not understand how we can not have List of Hadith. Notability is judged on a case-by case scenario, its like sayin "its hard to decide if a school is notable, so lets delet list of schools". that does not make sense. --Striver 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there exist no standard to what can and cannot be included in this list. Furthermore, it can be argued that every hadith is notable. Choosing selective hadith and adding them to this list will only create a biased point of view. Pepsidrinka 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's start thinking about overcoming systemic bias here. If the "notable" in the proposed title irritates, move it to List of hadith then. This is a commendable attempt to create a directory of articles and links to important Muslim texts, categorizing them by the authority cited and by which branches of Islam accept them. The info actually here is verifiable and NPOV, and doesn't present particular problems as to what to include. I doubt we will ever have to face this issue, but if (God willing) we end up with articles on each reported hadith, so be it. Smerdis of Tlön 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis, there's no systemic bias in removing a junk article. I'm one of the editors working on Islam-related articles (which I suppose is overcoming systemic bias) and we have a lot of work to do ASIDE from dealing with thousands of hadith. Hadith aren't "texts", BTW -- they're often quite short -- sentences or paragraphs. Do you really believe that we should include 17,000+ hadiths in Wikipedia? That's a reductio ad absurdam. If someone wants to put all of Bukhari or Muslim into Wikisource (if they're not already there), fine. Do dip into some hadith collections ([1], [2]) before you insist that it would be just fine, really, to have articles for every single one of them. Zora 11:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, there was a series of AfDs about individual Bible verses; no consensus was reached that these should be deleted. I am not sure that this is significantly different. Smerdis of Tlön 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Khalid! 09:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/query: I am an un-fan of lists in general and may never have really understood the rationale behind them, but if we have articles about individual hadith, is there any reason why Category:Hadith wouldn't be adequate to group them? Palmiro | Talk 05:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the same reason there are other lists: To include information that is does not exist in categories. --Striver 06:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i see that people have a problem with the title "List of notable Muslim reports". Note that the "notable" part is droped, if its only the name you dont like, vote for a "move". --Striver 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind people:

If we have this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, then there is no reason to not have a list of hadith. Nobody is going to bother to include random non-notable hadith. If you belive a hadith is biased or non-notable, vote down the hadith, not the list. This vote is not about weather WP shoudl have articles on hadith, only about linking to the existing hadith from a list. Nothing more. You dont like the hadith in the list? Add some of your own. You dont like a specific hadith? Improve that hadith, or afd it, not this list --Striver 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel the need to vote, but I will say that the hadith are so voluminous and so important that I would think they deserve their own wiki, and they can't really be done justice within WP. I would suggest to the authors that they consider developing a hadithwiki and then linking it where appropriate in WP. As with Bible verses, I think only the most important and best-known really deserve their own articles on the main WP. Bikeable 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as List of Hadith. Bikeable 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bro nobody is going to bother to copy random hadith here, it takes effort. Remeber that every single entry needs to be encyplopedi notable, otherwise it will be deleted. That ensures the notability of the entire list. The only reason Zora and gren are voting delet is that the list contains many Shi'a haidth at the moment, and they cant stand it.--Striver 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It takes effort? So does compiling a million-page online encyclopedia, but there are plenty of people interested in doing it, and I still think a hadithwiki would be an important project. Regardless, I'm now voting keep, above. Bikeable 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and all lists on that list of lists... if that made any sense. Lists are useless and are better served by categories.Gateman1997 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My sentiments exactly. Zora 21:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bah! How come we only see you in this vfd and not in one about any other list? If its about not liking lists in general, you go and try to change the WP policy about lists, not vote down individual lists. You dont like this specific list, since it at the monent containst Shi'a hadith, you said it in your nomination at the top! At least be honest about that.
    - - Sheesh! I said that I thought that the article ought to be renamed, to something like Hadith from the Sunni canon frequently quoted by Shi'a and that it should contain only Shi'a-preferred hadith. In fact, I think it should BE the hadith, not just a list of hadith. I don't quite get how wanting Shi'a-preferrred hadith re the Succession to Muhammad (which seem to be the ones you're citing) in an article constitutes prejudice against the Shi'a. At least that cuts the whole project down to a manageable size. Zora 05:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of non-Shi'a hadith in that article.--Striver 20:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, please. I said, Hadith from the Sunni canon. Zora 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A systemic bias it is indeed. We can have a list of apes, but we cant have a list of hadith. That's just sad.--Zereshk 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of Hadith, but we should also have categories for each hadith. A basic overlaying "Hadith category" subdivided into smaller categories dependant on who recognizes which hadith. freestylefrappe 23:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --Ya Ali 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Yahussain 18:44, 21 December 2005 (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.