Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the Verse of Rajm


 * 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. This vote had a little of everything, and I'm not comfortable with merging anything per the few "rewrite" votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hadith of the Verse of Rajm
This article has no text except for quotes from other people. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

keep Can you let me work on it? i created it some minutes ago, man... --Striver 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Slow down - only 19 minutes between initial post and AfD? This is way too early for a nomination, especially since there have been at least six edits since the AfD. B.Wind 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is still nothing there but quotes. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep there's now substantial content. Rewrite   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is still nothing there but quotes. Your chararacterization does not address my reason for listing this.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seemed very early to nominate an article with content (even if that consisted of quotes). However, it seems to have stopped there and the odds of the author expanding it are now lower.  It clearly needs a context to make it intelligble to non-Muslims.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * Keep and lay off the nominating articles that have existed for less than a day!!!!! Jcuk 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I don't think so. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename and completely revise. Merge with Rajm. I'm changing my vote. The article should be merged into Rajm (a much better title) and rewritten. Zora 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rationale: Striver is unlikely to improve this article, since he has an imperfect command of English. He writes stubs, not complete articles, and has said that it is up to others to fix his work. He also creates incomplete lists, or copies and pastes from online sources. This article was clearly created by cutting and pasting from online hadith collections. It completely lacks any narration that would clarify the issue for confused readers. Yet it IS a notable issue in Islamic history and even in current events, since it concerns the Quranic justification -- or lack thereof -- for the stoning of those convicted of adultery. If it were retitled to something like Islam and stoning (I'm not set on this title, there are probably better ones) and given another 30 KB of exposition, it could be a useful article. As it is, it is both unfindable and useless in its present form. Zora 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair enough to have an article on a text in its own right. Maybe there should be a close relation with a more detailed article on punishment in Islam. jnothman talk 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A text? This is not A TEXT, this is several hadith, or collected oral traditions, from collections with thousands of them. More than 17,000 in Bukhari and Muslim alone. Striver pulled out hadith relating to one particular issue. It's the issue that's in play here, not the hadith. Tafsir (commentary) and sira (history) are relevant too, not just hadith. This is a job for ... Islamic-studies-scholar-man! I wish he would jump out of the phonebooth right now. Zora 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite Should be explanatory rather than merely quoting the Hadith. Texts belong in Wikisource and the article currently does not explain (whether in good or bad english, I don't mind) the relevance and significance of this hadith. jnothman talk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems like it can be improved based on comments from Zora. I'm willing to give Striver much more time to clarify the concept. -- JJay 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ill work some more on this soon, i couldent do that for two days. --Striver 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge info into Rajm. Given the societal context that Rajm is one of the least understood topics within Islam, how about writing a complete article on stoning in islam, aka rajm, and including these hadith as links into that article. It could include the Sunni view, Shi'a view, and also historical facts involving the punishment of rajm. It could be linked from the stoning article under the Islam section. [Previously left unsigned accidently] Pepsidrinka 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into Rajm. Keeping bias that will not be improved makes wikipedia biased.  After 10,000 edit my inclusionist idealism died.  I'd rather have the article neutral in five years than something out of context, etc. now. Not that Rajm is an exemplary article or anything. gren グレン 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - give the article a bit time, its only been created a few days ago, and i'm sure Striver will improve/develop it. --Khalid! 18:55, 26 December 2005 (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.