Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 15:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat

Another article with a weird POV title created by a Shi'a apologist apparently to post anti-Sunni Shi'a polemics OneGuy 19:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep - OneGuy is on a rampage deleting everything i do and write.

The Topic is important, it reflects one major muslims, Alis, feelings toward a important event. It is to long to fitt in a biograpy and since its a "hot" topic, it needs ample referense to prove its validity, something i have included. If OneGuy's problem is that he thinks its not NPOV, then he should address it, preferably with proof, not voting for deletion only because it dosent suite his image of what Ali felt and did. In short: Ali DID opposed Abu Bakr, as is evident in authentic Sunni sources i quoted and its important for understanding the difrent event that emerged from that moment. If OneGuy has a problem with the title, i would have no problem renaming it to "What Ali sought of the first Kalif" or somthing similar.

I challenge OneGuy to bring ONE hadith that shows that Ali supported Abu Bakrs nomination for Khilafa. (unsigned comment by Striver)

The title of the article is not neutral "Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat." You moved your Shi'a POV even to the title. The title must be neutral OneGuy 03:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

X opposes Y isn't necessarily non-NPOV. Someone could easily write a neutral and factual article about, e.g., the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control. It's an historical fact that opposition over who would lead the Islamic Caliphate lead to the Shia–Sunni split, isn't it? J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

If Sunnis dispute that Ali opposed Abu Bakr, then of course the title is POV. As far as I know, Sunnis accept that Ali did initially oppose Abu Bakr for a short period but then accepted him as a Caliph after that. To make an article out of that is clearly nonsensical. And what's with quoting all these hadith on this minor point? The fact that Ali initially opposed but then accepted Abu Bakr can be written in one line into Abu Bakr's article without cutting and pasting all these hadith. Consider changing your vote after I explained the problems now OneGuy 07:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's POV or original research or both, written in a non-encyclopedic style. RSpeer 00:44, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is poorly written and un-encyclopaedic. Needs NPOV if it stays. Megan1967 00:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OneGuy 02:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this was written in more historic terms, that would probably fall under an Islamic history article, but I doubt it warrants its own article from what I remember of my Mid-East history. ScottM 03:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I suppose it needs work, it seems like a good start. Everyking 05:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep iff it can be expanded to be worth its own article, not to mention cleaned up and NPOVed. As it stands it seems as if it belongs as a section on a larger article about Ali, Abu Bakr, or Shia Islam. Striver's intent to create the page as an anti-Sunni polemic doesn't preclude its being transformed into a good article; remember the Sollog affair? The page really ought to be moved to something like Ali's Opposition to Abu Bakr or ...Abu Bakr's Caliphate also. J’raxis 06:27, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
• Don't Shi'ites have a name for the schism? (no vote) Gazpacho 10:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merge any useful information into article on one of the participants. Rmhermen 16:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Beyond NPOV problems, does this really need an encyclopedia entry? In its current form it is contextless nonsense. Katefan0 19:58, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Have to agree with Katefan0. The article may or may not have a point but as it stands it is totally out of context. Surely, at the very least, it needs re-writing to be included under a more general heading regarding Abu Bakr and the Calpihate? --Marcus22 11:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an article, agenda promotion of some kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Its interesting

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.