Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah


 * 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, Keep. Delete 10 Keep 6 Merge to Nikah Mut'ah and/or Mut'ah of Hajj 4, Merge 2 --> 62 percent for deletion. Not enough consensus. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 19:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah

 * Delete and/or Merge to Umar an unverifiable page (no sources used what so ever) about a speech, possible fork. Sole contributor and creator of the article is User:Striver. Jersey Devil 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete per User:Jersey Devil -- Oarias 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)- Changed vote to MERGE see my comments in (UMAR/Forteling AFD) - Oscar Arias 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * changed vote to keep after article improvements. Oscar Arias 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See that for my responce --Striver 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * to Striver - When you do an update to this, you may want to explain (briefly) what Mut'ha is (at least in the context of this article). The wikilink goes to a disambig page and I'm not sure what definition applies. -Oscar Arias 06:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your very contructive critique, i will try to comply.--Striver 11:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 07:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nikah Mut'ah and/or Mut'ah of Hajj - those articles give an encyclopedaic context while this article doesn't. The content may be unverified in the article but I expect it's quite easily verifiable.     Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   11:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator afd's since i created it, he does not know anything about the article, or even hadith knowledge. He claims the sources is questionable . THe source is Sahih Muslim, the number two most trusted book in Sunni Islam. No much different than saying the bible is a questionable source. User:Jersey Devil has a problem with me personaly and is consuming wikipedia time in the proces, that is all. I suggest he does that witout claming Sahih Muslim is "questionable" sources. The hadith is also given a ample space in the shi'a encyclopedia of al-islam.org . --Striver 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)
 * Merge/Delete as above; Wikipedia is not Wikisource. The article is basically just a reproduction of the hadith. While there are many like it at List of notable Muslim reports, I don't know what makes a hadith notable, and the article does not tell us. Sandstein 11:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just expanded the article to show why it is notable. --Striver 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 *  Merge/ Delete. Lacks context, if context is added becomes copy of other articles. The quotes from the speech are Wikisource material (or even better a separate web site systematically collecting the full writings of a religion). Zillions of itty bitty context-free articles on religious trivia are unhelpful to the reader of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a religious scholar.) Weregerbil 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, i just added context? --Striver 13:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, these are really about the Sunni/Shia thing. Articles to argue against the other faction? Withdrawing "merge" suggestion, just plain old delete as POV pushing. Weregerbil 13:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you do agree that the topic is both verified and notable? In fact, so much that it is used in "the Sunni/Shia thing"? If you came to that conclusion, why are you voting delete? If the article is pov, it needs npoving, not deleting, and i need assistance with the article, i cant to perfect articles on my own. --Striver 14:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it is notable enough. As to "npoving" and "perfecting" - no thanks, been there, tried to do that, met furious resistance and deletion (or "moving") of all criticism, will try to keep well clear of it if possible. Weregerbil 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for notability, you seem to have missed this link from al-islam.org, it clearly shows that the hadith is very notable in a prominent Shi'a/Sunni topic. As for "its hairspliting, see See Category:New Testament verses for comparision on details. --Striver 18:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 13:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per remark that Christianity is exploding here beyond all limits: see the enormous Category:New Testament verses. The article reads quite informative now. mikka (t) 18:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 21:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Per what, detete per Sahih Muslim AND Al-islam.org being "an unverifiable page"?--Striver 22:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per Dlyons493.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep Keep It is certainly verifiable and it does seem to be a topic of debate. It would be better merged somewhere else instead of standing alone though.  kotepho 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has been improved greatly. kotepho 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * regarding "instead of standing alone", Please see Matthew 1:5 --Striver 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Put Matthew 1:5 up on AFD and I'll vote Merge/Delete. It is even less notable than this article.  kotepho 01:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew. Consensus on individual verses of Matthew is that they should be merged or redirected. Esquizombi 10:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Current article could use more references, but stands by itself as adequate. And interesting.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about all hadith, we are talking about this hadith. If merged, where? And do we duplicate it to all other articles connected with this? Isnt it better to give such a notable hadith as this its own article and just link to it?--Striver 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, needs a bit of a re-write, but this is verifiable, and Striver has given it context beyond Wikisource. --  Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  05:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge despite bad faith nomination. Looking at an earlier version of the page, there was a citation. If you had a question about the source, the corresponding talk page should have used. Though, no source was provided on the Sunni and Shi'a views. However, this article should not exist, nor should other hadith articles. Despite Striver's example of Matthew:5 or whatever verse he keeps flaunting as precedence, I still don't think each individual hadith needs an individual article. Perhaps Zora's suggestion to create a Hadith cited by Shi'a article should be considered and these hadith could be merged their, instead of having thousands of individual articles floating around. Pepsidrinka 13:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge where? It needs to be duplicated at Umar, Shi'a view of Umar, Nikah Mut'ah, Stoning, Rajm, Ibn Abbas, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Zubair, Abrogation, Jabir ibn Abd-Allah, Hadith of the Verse of Rajm, Mut'ah of Hajj, Mut'ah and several other articles. Is it realy better to delete this and duplicate them all over the place? Further, it DOES merit its own notability as a hadith used in Shi'a-Sunni argumentations and a notable hadith to be included in the list of hadith. Again, Matthew 1:5. Further, this hadith is also cited by Sunnis, in fact it is a sunni hadith. So you dont put it in any Hadith cited by Shi'a. The whole idea of Hadith cited by Shi'a is pov, implying Sunnis never cite them. In fact, all hadith could go into Hadith cited by Shi'a, Shia cite all Sunni and Shi'a hadith. Zora tried to rename List of hadith to someting like that, but did not found support for that. --Striver 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. In theory, I see every hadith as notable, though I don't think every hadith should have its own article. Especially with the length of the articles as they are now, with the hadith itself taking up a significant portion of the article space. If it is significant in discussing, it needs to be discuessed in other articles. That is why we have external links, citaions, references, etc. You can link to the hadith and mention any specific commentary in the article and cite it. If it warrants in the future, I suppose an individual article may be created. I think something more formal needs to be organized on hadith, and individual AfD's should not be taken as precedence. Pepsidrinka 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete as above --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. We're missing a whole layer of articles necessary to make individual hadith articles worthwhile.  There is no way that will help users systematically understand these hadith in context which might explain the importance of this. Basically, I agree with Pepsidrink and Zora. gren グレン 21:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What "layers"? Why not creat the "layers" instead of deleting sourced, verfied and notable material? --Striver 23:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at this google search. No one else besides Wikipedia uses the title you have given it.  The most rudimentary part of the article and it is original research. gren グレン 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is explained in the second sentance of the article. Anything else? --Striver 10:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I will soon updated this article per Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar and foretelling, but i need to sleep now :)

--Striver 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, that took long time. Phew! Ok, now its updated, im sure nobody can state that the hadith is non-important now. --Striver 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:56, 17 March 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.