Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and prophecy

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 8 Keep 4 Merge 3 Neutral 1, 66 percent for deletion, not enough consensus. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of Umar and prophecy

• Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (no sources used what so ever), possible fork. Created by User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete as per User:Jersey Devil -- Oarias 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)-- Changed my vote to MERGE, see my reasons why in (UMAR/Fortelling AFD). -Oscar Arias 02:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Change vote to KEEP - see discussion in (Umar/Foretelling AFD) - Oscar Arias 03:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. The article does have sources (and had them at the time it was submitted to AfD). Even if they were disputed, the article wouldf be unverified rather than unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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 Sunan al-Tirmidhi, the number five most trusted book in Sunni Islam. 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 Sunan al-Tirmidhi is "questionable" sources.--Striver 12:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/delete. There are thousands of hadiths; is this really an article about a single sentence? 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 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Added text to show notability, dont have time to find sources and fix grammar right now, would appreciate help. --Striver 12:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, see Matthew 1:5 for a example of how a single bible verse can contitute a entire article.--Striver 13:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a weird article! There are some notable passages in the Bible (the first sentence, the "gave His only son" bit, and... uh, that's about it as far as I'm concerned :-) but that one seems just random and unhelpful. It gives zero information to a kafir atheist pagan infidel agnostic such as myself. The AfD it went through is also ...interesting reading. Weregerbil 13:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ditto Jersey Devil, Oarias and Weregerbil. I don't think it can be merged because there are just too many hadiths. This kind of "hair splitting" with these countless mico-articles relating to the Islamic Schism is making a mockery of the encyclopedia article standard.--AladdinSE 13:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment AladdinSE is a sunni that haves a long history of opposing Shi'a editors. Further, AladdinSE is addresing the whole idea of having Hadith at all and you only need to see Matthew 1:5 and remeber that this is not a paper encylopedia. I really liked the part where he stated that it is bad for wikipedia to go into details. --Striver 13:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not twist other peoples' words like that, it's rude and convinces nobody of your viewpoint. Weregerbil 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Striver You have NO IDEA what confessional class I belong to, if any. Unlike you, I don't go around boasting of my Ayotollah relatives or blatantly waging a fanatical sectarian crusade in an encyclopedia. What's more, I made no statement whatsoever "that it is bad for wikipedia to go into details". Try and remember this is a voting page, and stop attacking me for holding views different from your own.--AladdinSE 13:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i was to hard on him. We simply do not mix. See Talk:Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations for a example of the conflict between me, Zereshk, others users and AladdinSE. Not even Zora gives him full suport. Enough of this, as AladdinSE said, this is a voting page.--Striver 13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Terence Ong 15:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

Comment See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable, weird fork of Hadith of Umar and foretelling. Pecher ^Talk 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable? Like in "it can NOT be verified? Did you even bother to chek the reference? Sunan al-Tirmidhi is Unverifiable? Its not a fork, its two different hadith, this one is not included in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari, like the other one. --Striver 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You maybe missed the "[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]" part of the article when voting "Unverifiable"?

--Striver 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak deleteNeutral This can be covered better elsewhere. kotepho 00:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

For example? --Striver 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Umar and Shi'a view of Umar. kotepho 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So, do we duplicated it in all other articles that would also mention it, for example Imamah, hadith of position, Hadith of Umar and foretelling,Shi'a view of Umar,Sunni view of Umar, Seal of the Prophets and so on? --Striver 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote changed as I do not have enough knowledge to make an informed decision and thus do not believe I can vote for its deletion. I still do not believe it deserves its own article but I cannot tell you where it should go. kotepho 21:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. 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)
• Delete per nom. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So, where do we put it of

• Imamah
• hadith of position
• Hadith of Umar and foretelling
• Shi'a view of Umar
• Sunni view of Umar
• Seal of the Prophets

Do we duplicate it all over the place? As i showed you, this hadith is wiedly quoted by Sunnis anytime they iterate Umar's merits, the hadith stands on its own, even if there was no other articles refereing to it. --Striver 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet again, see Category:New Testament verses and Matthew 1:5 --Striver 18:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christianity articles are more well developed... they may be at a level where it makes sense to create verses and put them in an understandable context... also, Bible verses don't involve such sectarian struggles that hadith do. So, under that logic I'd probably keep a Qur'an verse if it had information but I'd delete most hadith. (also, where do these names come from?) gren グレン 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

More developed is great, lets have it more developed. The arguement "involve such sectarian struggles" only makes the hadith more notable, not less. People dont "struggle" about non-notable stuff. Exactly what about the article lacks context? If you could point it out, i would be happy to fix it, since i cant see what is out of context right now. Further, people dont end up here out of the blue, they have probably cliked through some article to get this deep in, and if nothing more, that should give them some context. --Striver 23:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, what layer? This isnt the front page for the Islam related articles, this is deep deep in. --Striver 23:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling --Striver 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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.