Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of closing the doors


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hadith of closing the doors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable event from the Life of the Prophet of Islam SAW. Do we create stand alone articles on every single event that has been narrated in the traditions? I am sure that meeting the general notability criteria is required, which this event does not. A simple structural alteration is a non event to be frank. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  07:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG, unless a reliably sourced credible claim of significance is given. That is to say, significant coverage (WP:GNG) beyond "the hadith itself + authenticity value". Why would this hadith deserve to be on Wiki over the thousands of other hadiths? In its current state, the article seems to be about just another WP:Run-of-the-mill hadith. PS: "A simple structural alteration...", you made my day :D - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The Hadith is notable and there are several reliable sources about it, for example: this and this.Saff V. (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then use those sources and make the article notable. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The article is written by the same editor who has produced other similarly purely Shia-propagandist articles which 1) create articles of non-notable things--as long as they can be misconstrued to aid in Shia one-upmanship. 2) Contain info that is dishonestly claimed to be in the supporting references. The info is purely the common arguments and beliefs elucidated on Shia chat forums; however, it is clothed with references in order to give a veneer of legitimacy. Basically, it's gaming the wiki system. 3) Misrepresent Sunni positions by claiming Sunnis even support the Shia position--therefore the Shia position must be correct. You will see these exact same tactics used by this editor in all the similar articles he has created on wiki. Other editors of his ilk have also used the same strategy, and i see a concerted effort here in spreading Shia propaganda--not encyclopedic content. Not only should this article be deleted but this editor's contributions should be thoroughly scrutinized to weed out the rubbish that only belongs on Shia chat forums.--58.106.229.229 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Arabic term appears to have significant coverage online (more than 7,500 searches for the exact phrase), plus English coverage and I didn't even look for Persian. OP clearly doesn't understand article as this is not about an EVENT as claimed. The editor who created the article has contributed 45 articles on Islam this year, through the AFC process, and only two were deleted, now OP has decided to mass nominate articles about which he does not understand. Article creator has no block log, no warnings ever posted to talk page, no SPI history and no mentions at ANI. Accusations from IP that editor is somehow problematic for creating articles about Shia Islam is troubling and needs supporting evidence ie proof anything is propagandist/misleading.  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you provide any RS discussing this in depth instead of extolling the virtues of creator. To be frank why is there even the need to defend the creator? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read up on WP:AGF if you seriously question why I would defend the article creator. The creator was attacked (suspiciously by an IP), but as I stated, nothing I can find backs those accusations up of user doing anything wrong. User is even going through AFC to create articles, so it's not like they're spamming articles. The article is well-sourced to begin with. Did you even research this topic? It seems you didn't since you twice refer to it as an "event," showing no knowledge of the Hadith or its significance.  —Мандичка YO 😜 11:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an AFD so if you want to defend the creator go to the SPI if there is any. As for your source. It is self published through lulu.com so kinda laughable as an RS, therefore the question still remains that if this is sooooooo notable, why not provide some RS? I have taken the time to go through the google results and almost all of them mention this as an off handed one or two line mention. Such trivial mentions do not count as "indepth" coverage. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read up on WP:AGF if you seriously question why I would defend the article creator. The creator was attacked (suspiciously by an IP), but as I stated, nothing I can find backs those accusations up of user doing anything wrong. User is even going through AFC to create articles, so it's not like they're spamming articles. The article is well-sourced to begin with. Did you even research this topic? It seems you didn't since you twice refer to it as an "event," showing no knowledge of the Hadith or its significance.  —Мандичка YO 😜 11:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an AFD so if you want to defend the creator go to the SPI if there is any. As for your source. It is self published through lulu.com so kinda laughable as an RS, therefore the question still remains that if this is sooooooo notable, why not provide some RS? I have taken the time to go through the google results and almost all of them mention this as an off handed one or two line mention. Such trivial mentions do not count as "indepth" coverage. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. English Google search returns 15 (yes, FIFTEEN) hits, Arabic search returns 137 (!) hits. For a Hadith, it is negligible, and definitely suggestive of being non-notable for an English-language encyclopaedia. kashmiri  TALK  23:42, 12 December 2015 (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.