Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Persians and belief

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 was Delete. There could certainly be an encyclopedic article on this topic (probably under a different title), but this WP:OR violation isn't that article. Xoloz 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hadith of Persians and belief

Hadith of Persians and belief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be largely original research from primary sources. Also see this debate. Deprodded by anon. Alksub 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Origional research.--Sefringle^Talk 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• delete same situation as in the last discussion.Proabivouac 22:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasoning.Brusegadi 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons for PROD'ing and previous Afd discussion on related topic. → AA ^(talk) — 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a trait of many "Hadith of..." articles is that they are not independently notable, and much of the contents are generally original research (with the odd exception, of course). i think the comments from the previous debate ring true here. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maybe I am missing the point. This does not appear to be original research but sets forth the various points of view about this hadith. I went to the article to find out about this hadith, and it answered my question. The article seems to be quite encyclopedic and not too textbooky, although the two are conceptually quite close together. I am sure that there are reams of commentary about this hadith (as there is about all hadiths), and I thought that the article did a nice job of summarizing them. We must not conflate original research (such as where you do the experiment and report your direct observations) with proper book research where you attempt to synthesize the literature, without adding your own POV. However, I do think that the article could stand a little tightening up. --70.57.246.220 00:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry I didn't realize that I'd been logged out. I wrote this. --Bejnar 00:05, 23 August 2007 (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.