Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni view of Abu Huraira

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 default to keep (and get rid of the original research). - ulayiti (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunni view of Abu Huraira

• Delete fork article of Abu Huraira, some original research. Any relevant information can be placed in the Abu Huraira article. Jersey Devil 18:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus but instead legitimate article spinout (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles). --Lambiam^Talk 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's different. See my comments on another AfD fom 14 May 2006 for my view on this subject. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali where you concur with flammifer, I've explained there why this doesn't hold water. --Lambiam^Talk 05:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my arguementation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali--Striver 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. POV forking is not an accepted way of dealing with content that has been rejected or removed in articles. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: POV. Abd al-Rahman ibn Sakhr isn't so long that Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles applies, anyway. --CRGreathouse 01:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

coment Could anyone answer this: Why are the "<Islamic denomination> view of x" articles pov forks in your view, while Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus not POV forks? Thanks for answering. --Striver 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're discussing Sunni view of Abu Huraira here, not Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus. When I read Sunni view of Abu Huraira, I thought that:

• The base article was too short to support splitting content off
• Declarative "he is trustworthy" in Sunni vs. "view him in a very negative view" in Shi'a
• "They dissregard reports of his unfailing memory as fabricated and falsified." in Shi'a summary, without comparable statements in the Sunni article. In fact, I see no criticism at all in the Sunni article.
• Likewise, the Shi'a article has "Comical Ahadith by Abu Huraira show clear fabrications" and similar entries. It's deeply POV, and clear which side is supported in both articles.

Put an AfD on * View of Jesus if you'd like, and maybe I'll read it over carefully like I did with this article. Perhaps it is just as POV, in which case I'll vote to merge or delete. --CRGreathouse 06:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not counting boilerplate material, the Islam box, external links, categories and edit buttons, the body of the Abu Huraira article has at the moment a word count of 1197, and leaving out the Muslim view section 1120. After merging in the two view articles, the word count goes up to 3375. This means that in a merged version the Muslim view section will occupy two thirds of the article, which is disproportional. So it is entirely reasonable to have spinouts here. As to the POV thing, of course we won't put an AfD on the Jesus views just to prove a point. These should stay, for basically the same reason these articles should stay, which is the following: Assume a reader wants to know more about the Shi'a view of Abu Huraira. As a matter of fact, that view is not very positive. Actually, it is not positive at all. Stronger even, it is quite negative. This is a rather essential part of Shi'a belief, whether you like it or not. The fact that it is so, is at least as much a fact as that Christians mostly have a rather exalted opinion about Jesus. Many even believe that Jesus has a divine nature. Now both beliefs are terribly POV and not shared at all by (for example) most Shintoists. So should Wikipedia then not report on these facts? Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully:

• "all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias" (my emphasis here and in what follows).
• "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
• "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."
• And: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

All the quotes here are from official Wikipedia policy and not just a guideline that you may ignore. Trying to eliminate the Shi'a viewpoint is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Lambiam^Talk 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Trying to eliminate the Shi'a viewpoint"? I just don't want the article forked. --CRGreathouse 01:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood you. But by using words like "It's deeply POV" and "Perhaps it is just as POV" you imply that this material should not remain. POV forks must not be "merged"; they must be deleted. Spinouts that by themselves conform to NPOV are legit; whether the matter is spun-out or kept/merged back in the main article is then a neutral editorial decision involving mainly considerations such as convenience for the reader. For the rest I wish we could spend our energy on improving these articles rather than keeping arguing over and over that they should be kept. --Lambiam^Talk 06:33, 19 May 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.