Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and religion

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 6 Keep 3 Merge 4 Neutral 1. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of Umar and religion

• Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (no sources used what so ever), possible fork. Sole contributor and creator of the article is User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Delete as per User:Jersey Devil -- Oarias 03:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC) - Changed vote to MERGE see reason why in (UMAR/Fortelling AFD). - Oscar Arias 02:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Changed vote to keep after article improvements. See (UMAR/Fortelling) - Oscar Arias 06:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See that for my responce --Striver 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. The article does have a source (and had it at the time it was submitted to AfD). Even if disputed, the article wouldf be unverified rather than unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:14, 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 Sahih Bukhari, the number 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. Ill give the article some more context in a minute. --Striver 12:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• 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 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

gave a context, need sourcing and grammar, ill go find the sources, but i need help with the grammar. --Striver 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed from "merge/delete" to "delete"; a quote from a religious leader for the main purpose of having some place to deride a competing religious faction. Little encyclopedic information, does not educate the reader, and the majority of the article (religious infighting trivia) shouldn't be merged anywhere. Weregerbil 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Weregerbil. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, if there were a Hadith cited by Shi'a article where this would be appropriate. Please don't merge it to Umar. There are many thousands of hadith and we don't need a Wikipedia article for each one of them. MSA hadith database is just fine as a source for Sunni hadith. Zora 23:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This hadith it prominently used by Sunnis:

[1], [2], [3], [4].

Also, this hadith have made Sunnis to reach the following conclusion in regards to interpreting dreams:

SHIRT: Wearing a shirt in a dream indicates adherences to the religion. The longer the shirt, the greater commitment to Islam. [5]

--Striver 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

as for "to many articles", See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to take a look at Matthew 1:5 before arguing "to many details" and "to many articles". Remeber that this is not a paper encyclopedia and that the hadith is notable on its own--Striver 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Weak deleteNeutral It is verifiable and it is notable in the context of the Shi'a/Sunni debate but not on its own. As noted in all of the other AFDs for all of these articles to give the context needed would be duplicating information all over the place. How can a tautological statement be so controversial (Some of the shirts were X short and some of them were longer. Huh?)? Are there other references to people's clothing in dreams in Islamic texts? kotepho 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also notable in Sunni and nothing more context. Didnt you note all the sunni links to the hadith? They view the hadith as one of the major merits of Umar: [6], [7], [8], [9].

Its Sunni alone notable, its dream interpretation notable, its Sunni-Shi'a debate notable. Heck, its much more notable than Matthew 1:5. --Striver 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It is only notable in the context of other things. As I said in the other AFD put Matthew 1:5 up for AFD and I'll vote to axe it. Why can't this be covered in Umar and Shi'a view of Umar? As it stands just reading the article you are not likely to know who Umar even is from just reading it and if you add the needed context to all of the other ones you end up with having to add context to multiple articles instead of putting them all in one place. kotepho 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Basicly, both Shi'a and Sunnis use the hadith, so it does not belong to either "Shi'a view" or "Sunni view" of Umar, in that case it would be duplicated in both of them, and its better to just link here. Also, the narration has to detailed content to be added in the main article, it would be tossed out in a minute. --Striver 02:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would need to be duplicated in disscusions in Hadith of Uthman's modesty and the hadith of Abu Bakrs belief. In short, when a hadith touches many subjects, its better to have give it its own article and have the details covered there, and just linking to the hadith from other articles. For example, the Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah tuches subjects like Sahih Bukhari, Stoning, Abrogation in the Qur'an, Nikah Mut'ah, Ibn Abbas, Umar and so on... Its best to just give the hadith here and link to it, rather than duplicating it everywhere. --Striver 02:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to neutral as I do not believe I have enough knowledge of the subject matter to decide where it goes. I still think it should go somewhere else but I believe Striver is correct that there will be duplication no matter which way you cut it. kotepho 21:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. It was explicitly mentioned under the Reference section. 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)

So, pepsi, do we duplicate it all over the place? What article should it be merged to? Remeber that all the info about the Shi'a and Sunni view of the hadith needs to follow on the merge. Where do we merge it? --Striver 18:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:30, 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 22:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The articles linking to this article give lots of context, people dont end up here at random, unles they did click the "get random page" - What layer do you propose? --Striver 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to accomodate, and gave it a bit more context. How about it? --Striver 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Umar. Stifle 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

updated per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling--Striver 04:48, 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.