Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addas


 * 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Addas

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources included showing WP:SIGCOV in reliable and secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE search also shows no such coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Islam,  and Saudi Arabia. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to List_of_non-Arab_Sahabah, which contains almost as much the same information. I assume this is a case where nothing else is known of the subject, so that designation as a stub is an invitation to add WP:OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Addas is one of the sahaba and this is a real story and person. It’s not a hoax. He’s known for caring for and sheltering Muhammad when he was attacked in Taif. Any seerah is going to have this story, so he does not fail BEFORE. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here in Tabari. There is also Adaas mosque in Taif and this nasheed. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Page 99 in Martin Ling’s seerah. Zaynab1418 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's important that the sources are in the article and not just in this discussion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact the article is poor quality doesn’t mean it should be deleted and no one has had time to improve it substantially because it was only nominated today. Zaynab1418 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I found most of those sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but as seerah's they are not reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How is a seerah not a reliable source? These are books by established authors and publishing houses. If seerah weren’t an acceptable source we couldn’t have a biography of Muhammad, his wives, his children, family members, etc. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they present myth as fact; see my response to Jclemens below. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing is mythological or miraculous in this story though. There’s no reason to think the person of Addas was made up. Also, all pre-modern sources are religious and by religious people and will often include accounts of miracles and hagiography. Modern accounts are going to be based on these pre-modern religious accounts, so it would be impossible to have articles about any pre-modern religious figures.
 * like by your logic the page on Rabia should be deleted. Rabia is presented in sources as performing miracles and all original sources about her are religious and hagiographic. So then these sources can be thrown out and modern sources based on these religious pre-modern sources can also be thrown out. So we should delete the page for Rabia then. Let’s also delete every article about a pre-modern Dalai Llama. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Considering the current lack of development on the article and also the limited amount of information about Addas, I support merging and redirecting to List_of_non-Arab_Sahabah. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google Books sources appear RS, even if they're reliably describing a religious tradition. Notability does no depend on the sate of the article, contra A.WagnerC, per WP:NEXIST. I'm not enough of a topical expert to evaluate standalone vs. merging as optimal presentation, so I offer no opinion on that possibility. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Google Book sources recite religious scripture. For example, the first one presents Isra' and Mi'raj in detail as fact, and concludes by describing it as a miracle that is deemed true and solid by all scholars. The messenger of Allah went on this journey with his body and soul., rather than the myth that it is; these cannot be considered reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By this logic maybe we shouldn’t have an article about Muhammad and also Ali, Husayn, Fatima, Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc because all the original sources are religious. Even secular authors like Karen Armstrong are sourcing their biographies from religious sources (Ibn Ishaq). It would be impossible to have articles on any pre-modern Muslim figures by this standard. Show me where the Wikipedia standards say that a source cannot be religious in nature. Most people follow some religion today and even more in history. Zaynab1418 (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to show you: . We can't use religious texts. We can use scholarly discussions about these texts and elements contained in them, but we can't use them directly. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain what you mean by religious sources, but the issue is sources that make WP:FRINGE claims, such as claiming that the story of Isra' and Mi'raj is factual. There are sources that cover religious figures without making fringe claims, and we rely on those sources to write articles on figures like Muhammed, Ali, Husayn, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s no miraculous claims being made in relation to the story of Addas. There’s no “Fringe theory” being presented. All the events are totally plausible and non-miraculous. No Fringe theory is being promoted. I also don’t think this is the intention of fringe theory because a fringe theory is a non-mainstream and non-factual claim, like that say the earth is 6,000 years old or big foot is real.
 * Reliable sources do not have to be unbiased.
 * ” However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
 * Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.”
 * Your personal feelings on these sources are not reflective of Wikipedia policy. Zaynab1418 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * a fringe theory is a non-mainstream and non-factual claim, like that say the earth is 6,000 years old or big foot is real. Or that the story of Isra' and Mi'raj is factual? BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Addas and his notability or not? No fringe theory is being promoted and you are arguing now any Muslim writer is an unacceptable source. A source being religiously biased does not mean it is not reliable. These are published books by notable publishing presses.
 * On the page for Ali, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a religious Shi'ite is cited numerous times. Tabataba'i, Maria Dakake, Reza Shah-Kazemi, Tahera Qutbudin, Hossain Modaressi, are all religious and conservative Muslims cited. Momen and Lawson who are Baha'is are cited. Should we purge this article of most of its contents because they're fringe theorists for being religious? Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The connection is that the sources you are citing promote various fringe theories, making them unreliable.
 * fringe theorists for being religious no one is saying that being religious makes someone a fringe theorist; promoting fringe theories makes someone a fringe theorist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article substantially and there are no fringe theories being promoted in the article. Addas appears in a massive number of books on Google Books. Again, an author being religious does not make them unreliable. All books have bias in some way. Isra and Miraj has nothing whatsoever to do with this article or the notability of this person or not. The issue with that you are saying is almost all the articles on the sahaba (and every other pre-modern religious figure) should be deleted then and any source expressing a religious belief is a "fringe theory". Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources by Lings is used as a source in numerous articles and he presents miracles as literally happening. When the Moon Split is used as a source many times. Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Any Muslim then is unreliable and a fringe theorist because they would believe in miracles that occur in the Qur'an and by Muhammad (ex. Isra and Miraj, splitting the moon). Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're arguing against a strawman of my argument; my argument, backed by community consensus and policy, is that a source promoting fringe theories is unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Where does that page say any religious belief is a fringe theory? Isra and Miraj (has nothing whatsoever to do with Addas) and is not a conspiracy theory or fringe science. It’s just a religious belief. There is no consensus that any religious work is automatically unreliable and these works are cited many times. Religious bias does not make a source unreliable which is said in the Wiki policy I quoted.
 * I have not cited the Sultan of Hearts book you are complaining about at all. You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting Wiki policy to push an agenda. Zaynab1418 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Oaktree bI am not citing religious scripture (Qur'an, the hadith) which is what your link refers to. Modern biographical works about Muhammad are not scriptural, authoritative, or primary sources. Books by writers like Mubarapuri, Lings, Armstrong, Haykal, and Adil are secondary scholarly texts based on primary historical sources. Maybe you should be less condescending since you don't appear to understand this topic and think someone from the 7th century will have works in Google scholar. Zaynab1418 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the only hits I find are Gscholar articles where someone with this name studies covid 19, I don't think that applies here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As above, using religious texts is a no-no here. . You'd need to find scholars talking about these religious items so that we can use them as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This Addas from Ta'if who was a sahabah. Religious scripture (Qur'an) is not being used as a primary source. The sources I found are secondary sources by contemporary scholars. Modern biographies of Muhammad are not primary sources or scriptural. You appear not to have read the above discussion. Zaynab1418 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When it gets to be that long, I glaze over it and make my own assessments. Short and to the point please. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at the article and the sources I’ve added. They are not scripture. They are modern biographies of Muhammad. I’ve substantially improved the article. Zaynab1418 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment -- I approach this as a Christian, with little interest in promoting issues relating to Islam. WP:V requires potential verifiability, not actual detailed citations, though they should ideally be added.  I voted above to redirect, because I had concerns as to the subject's notability.  If a story has been past down within Islam from the time of Mohammed, it is safe to assume it is verifiable, quite as much as anything from the ancient world is.  My concern was whether Addas was notable.  As I look at the article now, there is probably too much content to merge into the list, but my concern as to notability remains.  If the article contains as much as we can know about him, please remove any "stub" tag, as this is an invitation for WP:OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - I have read the debate above and I find it quite baffling. Those arguing that the page should be deleted appear to be saying that the sources are religious and therefore not reliable. That's a bogus value statement - plenty of pages on Wikipedia are about religious figures that other people think are mythical. The fact is that this character has commentaries written about him, therefore he is notable. He doesn't have to exist to be notable. One doesn't have to agree with the religious commentaries for the character to be notable. Keep. JMWt (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources aren’t unreliable because they are religious, they are unreliable because they make fringe claims. Sources that make fringe claims are unreliable, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
 * For example, a source that claims the world is 6000 years old is probably religious, but it is unreliable because it is making fringe claims. BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not relitigating this ridiculous idea with you again. You are holding Islamic texts to a standard that Christian texts are not held to. "Fringe claims" have zero meaning when we are discussing religious texts. JMWt (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We are required to base all articles, including articles covering religious topics, on reliable sources. There is also no exception that allows us to treat an unreliable source as reliable because it is on a religious topic - if it would be unreliable for secular topics, it is unreliable for religious topics.
 * You are suggesting that we should consider sources that treat the following claims as fact - rather than as religious beliefs - as reliable:
 * That Jesus resurrected Lazarus
 * That a galactic tyrant called Xenu murdered billions with hydrogen bombs
 * That Jesus visited the America's after being resurrected
 * That people are born into a caste as a consequence of the karma they earned in their past life
 * That the tale of Isra' and Mi'raj is factual
 * Why we cannot do this is obvious. If there are reliable sources that discuss Addas then we can keep this article, but in their absence we must delete it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think you are proving. To take just one of your examples, Lazarus of Bethany is literally a page on WP, as is Thetan What's the difference? JMWt (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they are discussed by reliable sources - sources which treat those beliefs as religious beliefs, rather than as fact. If you can find sources that cover Addas and don't treat beliefs like Isra' and Mi'raj as fact then are likely reliable and would count towards GNG, but so far no one has found such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Well sorry your anti-Islamic bias doesn't work on me. I'm tired of this discussion. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete A minor folkloric figure with little evidence of notability. The available sources are either primary or more interested in storytelling (reciting scriptural accounts) than describing the topic properly as a character of folklore or religion. The fact that the article contains only a "biography" section reinforces that conclusion, and even if that were assumed to be 100% established fact, we would still be talking about a person known from only one event. I can't seem to find those "religious commentaries" mentioned above; do they exist at all? Avilich (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep if rewrite somewhat. The story of Addas is in al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings (GBooks link), which appears to be what everyone else is quoting in a roundabout way, so if nothing else, he is a minor character there.  It would be nice to have a genuine scholar discuss if al-Tabari is the first place Addas appears in writing or if there are attested sources of the story earlier, but I suspect that even minor mentions in such a major work are Wikipedia-notable worthy of articles.  Even from a strictly secular perspective, we correctly feature even minor characters in sufficiently old stories (pre-printing press) as potentially worthy of articles (e.g. David of Doncaster or the like) due to the general paucity of sources, meaning that what did survive is probably relevant.  SnowFire (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've nominated David of Doncaster for deletion for failing GNG, and because there is no SNG that supports keeping articles on characters who appear in major works but lack SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent this is meant as an argument on this particular AFD, the point was that there are thousands of other minor folklore characters who have excellent and well-sourced articles, and tens of thousands with at least the potential to do so. Again, from a strictly secular perspective, because many religious legends are studied so thoroughly, you can go to the library and pick up sources hypothesizing about random name-drops of a single unclear person referred to in one fragment somewhere.  The odds of there being some "Encyclopedia and commentary of hadith" that covers even minor characters like Addas is basically 1, just with the added facet that some of these sources will be in Turkish/Arabic/Farsi/etc. (hence why I specifically picked a minor English folklore character).  Wikipedia's coverage here of Islamic folklore is quite incomplete; I'm *agreeing* with you that it would be nice to have more scholarly sources, but the existing sources are certainly close enough for clearly demonstrating that GNG is met, and using more scholarly sources is more a way to make the article C or B class rather than Start class, rather than a cause for deletion.  SnowFire (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * the existing sources are certainly close enough for clearly demonstrating that GNG is met For GNG to be met, we need to have multiple sources that contain significant coverage of the subject and that are reliable, independent, and secondary. So far, we don't have any.
 * If suitable (probably scholarly) sources exist, and if they can be found, then the article can be kept or recreated - but until then keeping the article will introduce WP:NPOV and WP:OR issues. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The overall argument against the sources appears to be coming not from any valid scholarly critique, but one of anti-religious bias. Writers in the area of religion and theology are not automatically dismissed as unreliable RS, and claiming WP:FRINGE here is a stretch.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a problem here in which one side claims the sources are not scholarly, and the other claims they are and that the opponent is biased, but without providing evidence for either assertion. Which sources do you think are scholarly? Avilich (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no problem here, just an obvious double-standard which means some editors can claim things about Islamic sources that would never stand about literally anything else on Wikipedia. Take Glastonbury Thorn as yet another example. It's a story about Joseph of Arimathea which is entirely bogus and made up. And part of an English Christian folk tradition for which there are no sources other than repeats and reimagining the story. Or Balthazar_(magus) which is important tradtion to various Christian churches but for which there is no evidence that the name is anything to do with anything that actually happened 2000 years ago. So you tell me, what's the difference between 99% of WP pages about religious figures from hundreds of years ago, which may-or-may-not be entirely fabricated and this specific page about an Islamic character? There is objectively no difference. Addas is a well-known character from the Islamic religion. It's not a fringe idea. It's not something anyone here made up. It's a story which is important to the religion and goes back a long time. How is that not enough to satisfy the RS stipulation of the GNG? This whole discussion continues to mystify me given the very clear precedence with thousands of religious pages on enwiki. JMWt (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being "important to the religion" and going "back a long time" carries no weight. The suggested sources simply retell scriptural narratives or are so old that they are barely secondary, and so cannot verify the claims of the article (see FRINGE again) or confer notability, just as nonreligious fictional characters don't get notability from plot recaps and are routinely deleted or merged. Avilich (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, have you started a RFC to remove *all* WP about minor religious characters on the basis that none of them have independent sources outwith of religious scholars? Of course not, because that would be an epic and probably pointless task. There is no reason to single out characters from Islamic tradition in this way. JMWt (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Those article appears to have some reliable sources that don’t make fringe claims, but instead discuss what people believe. For example, see our article on modern flat earth beliefs. (Note that I’ve only skimmed those articles and their sources; if the sources aren’t reliable, then please nominate it for deletion.) BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is automatically dismissing writers in the area as unreliable. Instead, I am dismissing writers that make fringe claims, such as claiming that the Isra' and Mi'raj journey actually happened, rather than saying that Muslims believe it happened.
 * If you believe that this isn’t a fringe claim can you explain why you believe it isn’t, because it appears clear to me that claiming any religious miracle actually happened is a fringe belief, regardless of whether that miracle is related to Islam, Christianity, Scientology, or any other faith. BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, just wondering, if billions of people believe that a religious miracle actually happened, is it still "a fringe belief"? Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes; fringe isn't based on the level of support the belief has, but on the level of support the belief has in reliable sources. For a non-religious example, consider holocaust denial. This is a fringe belief, and it is given as an example of a fringe belief on WP:FRINGE. However, the number of people who hold some holocaust denial beliefs is in the billions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is nothing like holocaust denial. It is exactly like every other page about religious character that appears on Wikipedia. The only difference is that apparently you discount Islamic scholarship as biased whereas you don't appear to weigh Christian scholarship in the same way. JMWt (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The only difference is that apparently you discount Islamic scholarship as biased whereas you don't appear to weigh Christian scholarship in the same way
 * Please provide a diff supporting this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In this diff you say that anyone believing in the Isra' and Mi'raj (ie a Muslim) is an unreliable source and therefore cannot be cited as a RS. In fact you go even further than that and claim that believers in a mainstream belief of Islam are promoters of "fringe" beliefs and are not RS even about the things they say they believe in including foundational stories and myths. JMWt (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * BilledMammal according to you, Islamic pages about their beliefs can not only be written by people who don't believe them, they must use sources who don't believe them. This is madness. I move that we proceeduraly close this AfD as we are clearly never going to agree, and you go ahead and try to justify your view in a WP:RFC. JMWt (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't said any of that. All I have said is that articles must be written by reliable and secondary sources, and that sources that promote fringe theories - such as claiming that religious miracles actually occurred - are not reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you are trying to tell us that there can never be sources that are anything other than fringe because according to you believers in these miracles can't be cited. This isn't a discussion about the current state of the page, it's an assertion by you that there can never be RS about this topic. JMWt (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I've already had to ask you to strike personal attacks in this discussion; please don't add to that by falsely representing my position. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. Your position, which you've made repeatedly in this AfD to anyone who disagrees with you is extremely clear. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff supporting this claim. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim that you've replied to everyone !voting keep? With the same points? No. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My position is only that sources that make fringe claims are unreliable. Given your repeated misrepresentation of my position, and inappropriate and disruptive personal comments, I'm not going to engage with you further. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of non-Arab Sahabah. I'm not exactly sure why previous editors who oppose to keep this article kept focusing on the reliability of religious writings, because with the sources currently provided there were still too little information to justify a separate articles. Unlike the articles of other Sahabah, none of the sources provided ever did a closer examination into the subject's life, instead they each only presented one variation of the same story. Unless the contents of the article can be expanded, for example if there're scholarly research into the subject, or if there are more details on the subject other than those currently presented, I see no need for a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2022 (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.