Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Mubahala (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hadith of Mubahala
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As stated in the first AfD, Mubahala itself is notable but this hadith is not, and the article is primarily a result of original research. All search results and academic/scholarly mentions are for Mubahala or Eid al-Mubahila, not the hadith of mubahala. Literally nobody participated in the last AfD other than me, so it was closed as no consensus. I'm renominating it speedily per WP:NPASR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - This has been through AfD twice, and held over twice each time, with nobody offering an opinion. This is miles outside of my field, but here it goes: this is essentially unsourced and I am not immediately finding anything on the topic in English that would count to GNG, but there does seem to be a web footprint for the phrase that indicates (to me at least) that sources are out there if one knew where to look, and in what language. I believe WP is better off with this article than without it and that deletion would not serve any positive benefit. Keep under WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Carrite, you are the man simply for responding. There is life on Earth, apparently! Anyway, are you sure the non-English sources you're finding are actually for Hadith of Mubahala (hadith = oral report), and not the actual Mubahala itself? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of anything, I'm completely out of my element. Are you for your part really sure this needs to be deleted? Carrite (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Carrite. I will go on record saying that I really am sure the content on this article (as copy paste of primary religious texts) needs to be deleted, and that the subject is not notable in and of itself. Now, should the whole article be deleted or simple redirected to Mubahala? I lean toward the former but I won't deny that a decent case for the latter could be made. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If Mubahala was a quality article and this one really sucked, I could see that outcome. But this one is at least coherent; they both have big sourcing problems. I wish a few people who work with Christian themes would chime in with OTHERSTUFF arguments one way or the other to provide guidance. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2014 (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.