Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal Sex in Hadith


 * 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. ChrisO 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anal Sex in Hadith

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT a soapbox and/or original research Gobonobo  T C 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original Research. -- lucasbfr talk 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*Keep  It is neutral. Thanks.--61.5.138.29 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:OR. This will never be a settled question because any Islamic scholar can issue a fatwa regarding the topic. Maybe this coudl be a line or two in Islamic sexual jurisprudence. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. andy 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original argument.-- Cailil   talk 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I do not consider this OR, but just the assembly of sources. The article doesn't pretend to settle the issue, but to present the classic views. This particular saying is well known. Perhaps the title should be changed to Anal Sex in Islam, and the article expanded. DGG 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As the previous contributer says, it's not original research but the assembly of established and referenced sources. The argument that it should be deleted because the subject matter might change in the future would lead to pretty much everything on wikipedia being deleted because new information can turn up about anything.  New information could be added to this article but the possibility of that happening doesn't mean it should be deleted now. Nick mallory 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cailil and WP:NOTABLE. So what's next? What kind of sex position that we want to create to attach to a certain religion as one article here? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep very important topic, if one can read Urdu & Arabic text in image. Thanks. -- 61.5.138.29 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One !vote per person please, thanks. Metros232 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR Bulldog123 10:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Also. Who let the sock/meat puppets out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete
 * OR
 * 1) Too many WP:ILIKEITs Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I'd have speedied this were it not for the AfD and the strange keep votes. It's a nonsense article. That's not to say that something decent couldn't be written on the topic, but this is nowhere close, and we can't keep it in the hope that someone might one day fix it. If any of the keep votes wants to write something decent, go ahead. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep I can personally attest to the fact anal sex is indeed present in hadith. - M  ask?  19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC) not really Delete
 * Delete it looks exactly like original research. I note that some of the sources are links to Wikipedia articles as well. Acalamari 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but under a different title. I don't understand why people say that this is original research. Both the Quran and the Hadith can be read online. Both works have large publications. I believe that the article is informative, but the author takes too many conclusions, which would fall under POV. The title is also problematic, as it sounds too vulgar. Perhaps an article on Islam and Sexuality could be created, where this subject would be covered. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment just moved this article to Anal Sex in Islamic Law for those of you keeping score at home. Metros232 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I cannot imagine in what version of the universe would an article about how Muhammed may have said anal sex is okay would constitute an encyclopedic article. Stuff like this is the reason Wikipedia is not taken seriously by academics as a source. JuJube 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As a side note, moving this article to Anal Sex in Islamic Law has not resolved the issue. There are plenty of Muslims who simply could not care less. JuJube 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant whether Muslims care about it or not. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - maybe a valid article potentially, maybe not, it doesn't matter. This is almost patent nonsense. It's incomprehensible cant. It's POV, SOAPboxy original synthesis/research. Moreschi Talk 19:26, 11 May 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.