Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Mubahala (3rd 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   keep. Monty 845  01:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

As stated in the previous AfDs, there is already an article on Mubahala. A hadith is a saying of Muhammad, making it a primary religious source, and this article is essentially just a copy-paste job of a primary religious source. The first AfD nomination had no commentary at all. The second had comments from one editor, though to be honest I feel it wasn't sufficient as the editor mistakenly though it was the 3rd nomination rather than the 2nd (and based their rationale for not deleting on that), and quoted Ignore all rules for keeping the page which isn't much of a structured position, leading to another "no consensus." For those who know a bit about Islamic religious texts, this issue is very clear: this quote from Muhammad is copy pasted here and this quote in particular doesn't have significant coverage even though the even the quote is about - Mubahala - does. It's not notable in any way. Renominating one last time per WP:RELIST. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  07:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm the only person so far other than the nominator to have opined on this. I'll flip my previous opinion and defer to the expertise of the nominator here. This has been through the wringer again and again; there has been no defense mounted, nor does sourcing seem to support a GNG outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the topic is considered hadith or not seems to be a difference in the Sunni/Shia schism. Insofar as the nominator is openly Sunni, this seems to be COI rather than expertise. Andrew (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Andrew Davidson, I am sorry but your statement is clearly false. Sunnis and Shias both agree that this is a hadith; the disagreement is only in regard to interpretation of its meaning.
 * Additionally, I am offended by your flagrant attack on my character and objectivity. You have no idea who I am nor have we edited together in the past. Not only do you have absolutely no basis for smearing my reputation as an unbiased editor but your assertion that a sunni editor writing on a topic relating to sectarianism must automatically be biased, icomes off as bigoted and shallow. If you won't at least delete such comments or apologize for them, please just refrain grom attacking other good editors that way and focus on the discussion at hand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Andrew Davidson, I am Shia and as User:MezzoMezzo told "Sunnis and Shias both agree that this is a hadith; the disagreement is only in regard to interpretation of its meaning." Please be polite and check his contributions to find you are wrong about him.-- Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 18 July 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 16:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This seems to be a title dispute/fork, which should be resolved by merger, not deletion. Andrew (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As you can find in the lead of Mubahala it is a general term which can be used for different events, while Hadith of Mubahala refers to the specific event which has happened during the the messenger of God's life. Of course, that article has some problems based on WP:Verifiablity. I ask Mezzomezzo to help with improving it instead of deleting. -- Seyyed(t-c) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hadith of Mubahela are mentioned in authentic secondary sources. I already added some points from Tafsir al-Mizan by Tabatabaei. We'd better improve the article instead of deleting the article. Mhhossein (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article needs improvement with more reliable sources but the subject is notable. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:00, 18 July 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.