Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abd-Allah ibn Abbas

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 keep. W.marsh 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abd-Allah ibn Abbas

I originally nominated this as a copyright violation, however, by the time an admin looked at it the offending text had been removed and a short stub replaced. Immediately afterwards, the text was replaced with the current. Although I have not looked at it in detail, it still seems to have been copied largely from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/biographies/sahaabah/bio.ABDULLAH_IBN_ABBAS.html and the talkpage also suggests http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/companions/article07.shtml. This article is an unreferenced, possibly copyright violating, biased hagiography. It should not be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Dev920 16:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious keep. The subject of the article is clearly notable and encyclopedic. AFD is not the right place to deal with content disputes. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject is clearly notable, the entry itself needs much work. Em-jay-es 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable subject. Copyvio material needs to be deleted, or rewritten obviously. I suggest withdrawing nom, as it's copyvio, not AfD. Tyrenius 16:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The people who keep putting the information back refuse to recognise that it is a copy vio. This is why I have listed it for deletion because they fundamentally fail to understand what the article needs. Why don't you bring it up with them? The best outcome of an AfD is an improved article, so someone improve it or vote to delete it; don't just assume other people will (and I think i have put enough effort into this article myself) Dev920 17:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you start by explaining what portion is a copyvio, instead of just giving sweeping accusations. And while you are at it, if you are sincerly interested in building a encyclopedia, you could just paraphrase the alledged copy vio or ask somebody to paraphrase it for you, instead of wasting peoples time here. --Striver 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and mostly encyclopedic. I made some edits (as per Manual of Style on Islamic Honorifics to make it more NPOV: "the Prophet Muhammad" to "Muhammad". As for the copyvio that apparently keeps coming back, that is an issue but I don't think the way to resolve it is by deleting the article. Copyvio material needs to be removed. If it's not a good faith addition of info WP:AGF, then the posters need to be contacted and, if they persist, a block on them needs to be taken up. I think this is proper Wiki procedure. Those with more experience can comment. Interlingua ^talk 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a content dispute... no reason to delete. I've tagged it for cleanup though becuase it could stand a major rewrite. Some sections are unecessary and the whole thing reads way to close to it's source material even if it isn't a direct copyright violation. Regardless, this is a case for cleanup... not deletion.--Isotope23 17:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above editors Dlyons493 Talk 20:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and consider further action against Salman01, who keeps inserting copyvio into this and other articles. Pecher ^Talk 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And against Striver too, who is supporting Salman01 on this page. Pecher ^Talk 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What copyvio? I keep hearing that, but WHERE?! Give me a quote, pretend im blind and stupid, show it! --Striver 21:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you go back to the history of the article [1] there appears to be clear copyvio from [2]. Just for example, the paragraph "During the lifetime of the Prophet, Abdullah would not miss any of his assemblies and he would commit to memory whatever he said. After the Prophet passed away, he would take care to go to as many companions as possible especially those who knew the Prophet longer and learn from them what the Prophet had taught them. Whenever he heard that someone knew a hadith of the Prophet which he did not know he would go quickly to him and record it. He would subject whatever he heard to close scrutiny and check it against other reports. He would go to as many as thirty companions to verify a single matter." Dlyons493 Talk 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: People who have been suggesting that this matter is copy vio rather than AfD are missing the reason I nominated it; I DID nominate for copy vio, whereupon the material was removed, and as soon as the admin checking copy vio said there wasn't a violation (because he didn't see what had been deleted), the copyright violation was immediately put back on, and added to from the same source, as it stands today. The article is unreferenced, it is biased, and it is a copyright violation. This surely breaks as many WP:Policies as is needed. I am tired of having to push this point, simply because I am outnumbered by the people who want the copy vio to remain on the article (though Mr. Striver is unaware of what constitutes copyright violation, he still has no right to continually replace what various admins agree IS). I want this article, like all articles, to be a GOOD article, and it seems to me that as it stands it is a disgrace to everyone. So, please, I beg you, either vote to delete, or take on this article's improvement instead of simply calling for someone else to do it. I have tried every avenue now and I don't have the will anymore for a protracted edit war. "The best outcome of an AfD is an improved article" Dev920 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that i have been informed of exactly where the copyvio is, i no longer support a revert to previous version without first addresing the problem. that was all i needed to know, exactly where the problem was, and now i know. --Striver 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In your edit of 18 June you stated This is not a copyvio.. That edit reverted the copyvio material to the article and the URL with the copyvio was clearly visible - even minimal checking would have shown you that the article was copyvio! Dlyons493 Talk

Well, i guess i didn't try hard enough. My bad. --Striver 11:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm struggling to keep the non-copyvio stub, but that's not easy against the joint efforts of Salman01 and Striver. Pecher ^Talk 22:17, 26 June 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.