Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah (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   delete. L Faraone  01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are fourteen sources provided. Of those fourteen, two of them lead to extremely partisan Sunni/Shi'a debate sites; the other twelve all lead to primary sources, few of which are even cited properly. The sources, taken together, fail WP:RS and this specific hadith, without mainstream academic interest, fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the intent here seems to be a push for a certain point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. It's an inherently non-neutral article about a non-notable hadith containing smatterings of WP:OR as well. This is unfortunately commen with many hadith articles created, and now deleted, by the retired User:Striver.

Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  10:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per past WP:OUTCOMES as noted in the nom, or in the alternative, per WP:TNT and WP:OR. It is so poorly wirtten, and so dependent on original research to explain, that is is not encyclopedic and ought to be removed. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nom's assessment seems better than any singular reason I can give at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2013 (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.