Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Events with Muhammad: 1

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki these three articles to Wikibooks. I see a lot of delete votes here, but from reading the comments made by them, many of them say this belongs in Wikibooks. Therefore, I will submit these articles to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Events with Muhammad

Up for deletion are Events_with_Muhammad:_1, Events_with_Muhammad:_2, and Events_with_Muhammad:_3. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

• Delete the lot. If they were encyclopedically notable, they would belong in a page with a real title; as it is, better to just stick whatever biography they're quoted from in the References section of Muhammad. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC) PS: Or put them in Wikisource, if you want; they don't belong here, but they might belong there. - 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic - basically rehashed source material? CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. And there's more. Striver has been trying to evade controversy on the main Islamic history articles by creating dozens of his own. Striver does not admit that the Muslim traditions he wants to include, the hadith, are extremely problematic as historical source material. As many secular, Western, scholars have observed, instead of the sources closest in time being the ones that are the fullest and the most detailed, the Islamic historians seem to have more and more material as time passes. Western scholars believe that most of it has been invented for polemic purposes. If he wants to include the standard Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi hadith collections in Wikibooks, that would be fine. A service to the world community. Importing a mass of dubious material into Wikipedia, as if it were fact, is not a service to anyone. Zora 01:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Zora, you miss the point. The point is not to bring the hadith COLLECTIONS to wikipedia. The point is to REPRESENT THE MUSLIM VIEW ON THE SUPOSED EVENTS. Now, it is true that Muslim have hadith as the main source for our BELIFE, but that does not matter one bit. For all you care, it could be the figment of our imagination, why we belive the event happened is TOTALY IRRELEVANT. As for hadithes, i have explained it extensivly, hadithes give a glimps her, a glimps there. It does not give the whole event in one shot. So i go to non-primary source of hadithes and report how they managed to puzzle together the event. Just take a look at the "external source", its full of prominent Muslim sites giving THEIR VIEW of what happened. They could be wrong, it could be non-factual,they might use FULL BIAS when doing their reconstruction, but IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY OR HOW THEY CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, im just REPORTING THE MUSLIM VIEW OF THE SUPOSED EVENTS. in fact, im going to make that clear in the articles, i sugest that everybody takes a look att the uppdate ill make to the articles.

--Striver 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So, done!

Now, It clearly says

• Its not facts
• its a representation of MUSLIM BELIF OF THE EVENT, wich is all that matters, since it is what Muslims belive that matter to them'
• It says why the event matter (as if that would be necesary considering wikipedia contains Dog poop girl)
• It shows it is NOT USING HADITHES, rather, it use MUSLIM RECONSTRUCTION from the hadithes.

I really fail to see how it can be deleted or transwikied with all that said.

--Striver, upset with Zora. 02:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• not delet yes of course it rehashed source material, what did you think encyclodpedias contain? original research?

It can not be included in a biograpy, it would clog the biograpy and make it unrideable. And what about everybody else that are involved, are whe supposed to clog upp their biograpy as well?

Just take a look att the Battle of Bassorah, its obvious that it can be included in a biography, not to say in the biography of every single one included in it.

Its the same with this series, all the event Muhammad (as) did can not fitt in his biography, that is long enough as it is. And yes, they do have a relevance. If ti was me doing stuff nobody would care, but we are talking about the person that over one billion people are trying to imitate. What more could be relevant than report on actions that over a billion are imitating?

Marjas dedicate THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to read stuff like that so they can tell people if is allowed to listen to music or if its allowed to have an abortion: THIS IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF EVERYDAY ISLAM, the day-to-day practices of Muhammad!

Of course this would not fitt in a bok, but this is not a book, its a electronic encyclopedia and of course it does use other ways than books. I does not have everything on pages, it has one event per article so and all relevant persons can link to that event. This event tells a lot about how the Sahaba acted in their private life as well. It is the farthes thing from uninportant and it is set upp in best way possible: NOT everything in one long meaningless article that nobody care to read, rather, on event at a time so it can be linked to it whenever it becomes relevant..

Remeber this is not a book, information is not costly to keep and it has a value. Its not trash, its the preserved day-to-day life of the peoble that over one billion are imitating.

--Striver 7 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

• Delete. I still fail to see the purpose to those pages and it is hopelessly misnamed. If anything, you should expland the page on Muhammad to include some of this information... I fail to see how this would clog the biography... if it did, someone would split it. and there is not too much uncylcopedic information here anyways. And i do not see the point of having every small event in his life mentioned... If people wanted to find out about that, they would read the Qur'an... There's not listing for "Jesus has tea on December 4, 20 AD" and there's not reason to. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 7, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Convincing argument, but I still think its a bit too much for an enclyclopedia but deletion would be a waste. Hence, I change my vote to transwiki to Wikibooks. Seems logical as an encyclopedia is meant to be a compendium while books can be as detailed as they want to be. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 00:12 (UTC)

• Comment My friend, trust me, if i would put even one fourth of that in the Muhammad biograpy, it would be deleted within the houre. It simply does not fitt in the biograpy.

Your analogi with Jesus (peace be upon him) does not work for several resons:

• the only source to what Jesus did is in Bible, more or less. And it follows a very short period of time, less than three years. Muhammad on the other hand has over 20 years of his life writen down, every single thing he did, done to including relieving himself!

• Jesus life is not the source for such an extensive work as Muhammads life is. People dedicate decates, over forty years, onlu to learn what he did and why he did that. That information is then prosest and the detailed Muslim Jurisprudence is derived from it. Have you ever wondered why Muslims men cant have gold rings? Since Muhammad forbade that during his life. Now, trust me, its imposible to include all that details to the main article, or any artice, but it dosent mean its irrelvant! It affect Muslims day-to-day life, in contrary to Jesus teaching that are mosltly allegorical. When did u turn you chek the last time?

• Muhammads life is NOT in the Quran! Let me repet that, its NOT in the quran! Ther has been sugestiosn to make a vers-to-vers comentry of the Quran. If that is important, then Muhammads Sunnah is equaly merited to be included to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the hadithes are not to be read anywhere in a single narratative flow, people dedicate their entire life to sift troght the material and get coherent view of all the details. Now thanks to computers that can be done instantly, you just need everyones biography and link the correct event to the correct biograoy!

I repeat, this material can not be found in the Quran, in can not be found in a ordered manner in any book, its spread over volumes of books in a non-cronological order, and not even in one pice, its it often takes 4 hadithes in diffrent volumes to make sense one event! People dedicate their live to this, its not a small matter, its not easly available and it is definitly worth to represent in a encyclopedia that aimes to collect "all human knowledge"! Think about it, it may sound as every-day event to you, but remeber that it shapes the life of over on billion people that strive to mimic Muhammad's smalest action, including how to greet eachother! Its not godnight-tales!

I mean, if Rich Bagger can have a articel, i dont get why events that shape 1/6 of the world cant have an article! Take a look at hadith and sunnah and you will see that what im saying is correct!

It is WAY do much matterial to fitt in a biography, not even 1/10 000 would fitt in a biograpy, and even if it did, is it supposed to be repeted in every biograpy that of those whom partake in the event? This is the best solution, to have an article series, and link all involved to that article!

I mean, c'mon, this is not something i make money on, and its nothing WP looses money on, i just want to have Muhammads Sunnah represented on Wikipedia!

--Striver 8 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

• Delete These articles are source material. It looks like what the author wants to do is write a book. I suggest WikiBooks for that.Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
• Delete all per Tobycat. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Keep and move to wikibooks, I can certainly see value in something like this, but wikibooks is a better place. Also while the Muhammad and Hadith articles are fairly mature, the Sira article is in need of development. Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 8, 2005 03:51 (UTC)
• I agree with the idea of a transwiki to the books section, if not a wikiworship area. This type of stuff is bound to keep showing up, so might as well have a place for it. — RJH 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

• comment Well, the problem is that this things do not come from a single source. Its important to undertand it, one event is usualy described manny drifrent sources and to make a coherent and cronological order out of it, one article needs to be done that includes all material relevant to that particualr event. Its is not from a book rather, from bits and pieces of manny hadith collections. --Striver 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • In that case, since it seems you are doing the work to combine information from these sources, this would qualify as original research and should be deleted. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

• Comment

Well, i see what you mean, but tell me, is the Hitler article coming from one single book?

Its like this:

Ther are several hadith that explain one given event. Scholar that have more knowledge than me have gone throughe the chain of narrations of them and authenticated them. The authentic hadithes can be found in diffrent collections, here for example. In one of those collections one can say x whent to home and ate a burger. the next hadith in the other part of the collection says that after x ate his burger, he whent to work.

Now, is it original research if i make a article that claims x whent home, ate a burger and then when to work?

In manny cases even puting the hadithes together is done in diffrent biograhis of the sahaba. Manny of this event simply would not fitt in a article biography of muhammad, since everything he did is recorded.

However, they are relvant, specialy while doing the biography of the sahab, in those cases it can be benefitial to link to those events instead of repeting them in every single biography.

Take for example Events with Muhammad: 1. in whose biography should it be included?

• Salman the Persian
• Bilal
• Ammar ibn Yasir
• Suhayb
• Khabbab ibn al-Aratt

This cant be included in Muhammad, that article is to long as it is, however, it can not be included in any of the other biographies eather, since it is Muhammad that is the main character!

Oh, by the way, i found that event in a web site, but al of them dont come from the same website, that what makes it "not a book".

--Striver 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

It still is a book as its not a compendium see above. Just because they come from different sources doesn't mean its not a book... just a multi-souced book. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 00:12 (UTC)

transwiki to WikibooksOk, im convinced about that argument, lets move it to .. was it wikibooks ?

--Striver 9 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

hmm.. on second tough, i disagree... i ... i mean, i source says.... a event took place at 1, 5 and 7 am, a second source says what happened at 2, 6 an 9 am, and a third source gives the names, and i combine that in a article that says the events of "1,2,5,6,7 and 9 am + names" is that a book? no. is it original research? no. Its a legitimate article. Thats my view. Im sure they did not find everything in Dog poop girl in one and only source, and that is not transwikied to Wikibooks... conclusion:

• not delet, its a legitimate article, no book, no original reasearch, it a extension of several biographies, if any biography is legit, then the extensions are legit as well.

--Striver

• Delete 10,000 pages of every detail of a man's life, no matter how important, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Neither do a simple series of collected quotes from multiple works. If you were to write an article on, say Muslim views on the Nature of Heaven, and then include the references you have now in Events_with_Muhammad:_2 to demostrate that there would be no elderly people present, then that would be entirely acceptable. There needs be no direct back linking from every Sahaba to every event in which they are involved with.

• Coment I understand what you are saying, but remeber that that hadith carries more issues than that. It need also to be duplicated to Muhammads sense of Humar and also in the biography of the people engaged in the event. In that view, its better to have it in one article and link to it from every other place.

Further, whe are not talking about "10,000 pages of every detail of a man's life", rather "THE man" 1'200'000'000 people try to imitate.

--Striver 23:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite aware of just how import a man he is. However, Wikipedia is not a set of instructions for how to live as a good Muslim. Furthermore, by requiring all of these interlinks, you would be trying to create tens of thousands of pages, each of which would have to link to thousands of other pages detailing every mention of that person, or that event, in any context. And you would be creating at least half of these pages under what are essentially non-sensical, non-searchable, and non-encycoledic titles. This last point is the most relavant here. This VfD refers only to the three pages in question, not to whatever grand designs you may have. And "Events with Muhammad 1, 2, 3 etc... ad infinitum are simply not suitable titles for articles. --Icelight 23:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete asap. Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please stop creating this kind of sprawling, pointless, extraneous, poorly written article, brother. This is precisely what we have been complaining about. 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like a poorly written novel, not noteworthy. Feel bad for author wasting time. Amicuspublilius 22:59, 19 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.