Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad


 * 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 all. The arguments for keeping are mostly weak, amounting to "it's notable", which is by itself not much of an argument. Although the mass nomination makes it difficult to defend individual articles, advocates for keeping could have tried to show that ample reliable sources can be provided for at least one of these hadiths. Advocates for deletion, on the other hand, employ WP:NOT and WP:NOR, which are strong policy arguments, and the level of sourcing in the articles (ranging from poor to nonexistent) serves as ample prima facie confirmation of the OR claim. Sandstein 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadith of the demise of Muhammad

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This appears to be a classic case of what Wikipedia is not (i.e. a textbook). Contains a commentary (which appears to be OR since no secondary source is cited) on a hadith. → AA (talk) — 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The following related articles should also be considered:




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk) — 10:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete all. User:Striver has created a veritable fiefdom of original research, after the sadly correct observation that it's a lot easier to create articles full of unsourced opinion then in is to add the same to existing (watchlisted) articles. For all practical purposes, he has appointed himself as Wikipedia's official interpreter of Islamic scripture, and a palpably opinionated one at that.Proabivouac 11:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would also like to add that where the information is relevant, it is included in the relevant articles (e.g. Muhammad, Fatimah, Abu Bakr, etc.) and the hadith by themselves are not notable as such. → AA (talk) — 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant info, then delete all. Some of the information is sourced, but there is not enough of it to merit a separate article on each of these - some don't have any proper references, just the few verses of the Qur'an mentioned in the article. Reads as OR and textbook. Hersfold (talk/work) 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as per Proabivouac. many of these "Hadith of" articles are simply needless.  ITAQALLAH   15:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all, and repair by adding references and deleting Strivers original research. Differences in the point of view between the Sunni and Sh'ia sects needs to be explained and expanded upon. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Upon deletion of Striver's original research, there will be nothing left. Some have been tagged as lacking sources or needing cleanup for over a year; the response has been to create still more problem articles. Deletion will not prevent anyone from creating sourced articles on these topics in the future.Proabivouac 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. --PEAR (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The primary article, at least, seems to have copyright violation issues. At least some of the text (Sunni/Shi'a view sections) is copied word-for-word from here. WIthout taking the time to review all the articles, I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet other copyvio issues would be found in them. Ariel ♥ Gold 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. We don't need an article on every important hadith in Sunni & Shi'a Islam. We can accomplish the same goal of highlighting the difference of opinions between the groups by the main topic of the hadith (e.g., the hadith on rajm (stoning) can be discussed in the article on rajm; the hadith on the merits of Fatimah can be highlighted in the article on Fatimah (there already seems to be a Sunni/Shi'a section on her article)). Pepsidrinka 18:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * weak delete, reads like a bunch of quotations. Would be better served in wikisource? Mathmo Talk 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all From what I understand, a hadith is a venerable transcript of what had been oral tradition (one could describe the Gospels in the same way); in the case of Islam, an authority supplementary to the Qu'ran. Correct me if I'm wrong, or completely off base... I won't be offended.  Maybe it should be a wikisource, but if it isn't, then I would argue it shouldn't be deleted yet. I note that the nominator says that we should "consider" deleting the other items listed, which some could argue is not actually a nomination.  Verily, verily, I hateth to smite all the hadiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)  Oops.  Mandsford 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you could compare it to a verse in the Gospel and basically each of these articles is a "verse" with OR commentary by the article creator. Regarding the nomination, I have tagged each individual article for AfD and if the wording on this page is incorrect, I apologise but feel free to correct as required. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What grounds to you have for claiming that my contributions are OR? That's quite a big statment, and i hope you can back it up. --Striver - talk 02:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it was then, had no secondary sources and referenced one of the statements to a single primary source (Hadith is a primary source - not secondary). The views section (with a single sentence for each view) has no references and reads like an interpretation of the narrations. Statements of such ilk are considered OR. Aside from that, as has been mentioned by others here, the titles of the articles themselves are OR. The introduction to most of these "Hadith of..." articles states "Although the narrations are prominently quoted and referred to, they do not have any formal name..." (which itself questions the notability of these) but every article IS given a name thought up by Wikipedians. Perhaps some of these events are notable and the article should be on the event itself but having articles purely on the basis of explaining a hadith or a verse of the Qur'an is a task for Wikisource. → AA (talk) — 10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course is a there a reference to a primary source, when quoting one. That is standard, just look at any news article, they quote the newspapers, not some secondary source book. And of course is the view section an interpretation of the narration, what should it else be?! "View" and "interpretation" are almost synonymos. And no, just because i did not provide a source at that time does not make the text OR: it just makes it unsourced. There is a huge difference, one is breaking WP rules, the other simply needs more work. Please do not confuse this issues when addressing my contributions. And yes, we do have lots of other very very notable articles were the title itself is the target of hotly wikipedian debates, one example being the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. It has entire sections in the talk page were wikipedians are arguing what name they should make up for the article (over 10 suggestions!), since it does not have any standardized name. By the same logic, are you questioning the notability of that event`? And yes, the title disclaimer is informative, honest and accurate. Wikisource collects primary sources, wikipedia documents views, events and such - this is the perfect place for this article.--Striver - talk 10:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The references cited in 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, are discussing the specifics of the article subject (i.e. blowing up aircraft over the atlantic). The sources cited in the articles up for AfD, are not on discussions about the article title itself. Hadith of mutuality with Ali is just a narration so is Hadith of the blind man. Hadith of Learning Qur'an from four people does not explain why it's notable. There are hundreds if not thousands of hadith that the Shia and Sunni disagree on but as a theme, they are not notable in general. Where it can be shown that a hadith has been the primary subject of scholarly discourse and references beyond primary sources can be cited, it would be appropriate to have an article. But for most of these (where it's simply a narration of the hadith), it belongs in Wikisource. It would be appropriate to take them one at a time and re-create it to a level where WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOR are satisfied and them move onto the next one and as others have suggested, there's nothing to stop that even if the current articles are deleted. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring up 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot to make any points about sources, i brought it up to void your claim regarding "non-standard title = non notable". I might have assumed the notability of some hadith and not thoroughly explained them, and this can of course be improved. Being a Muslim, i might have assumed notability were it is not self evident in the view of a non-Muslim that is not versed in Islam. Regarding "hadith that the Shia and Sunni disagree on but as a theme, they are not notable in general", you are self evidently mistaken, controversy = notability, specially when talking about the two biggest denominations in the worlds next largest religion (billion people) having a controversy about the second source of Islam itself - that is as self-evident as it gets - unless you have an agenda. And of course is there volumes of books written that use this hadith in their argument, and each having their own view of them - and that is what the article does, present the hadith and the views on them, something that this specific article does more clearly now that i have contributed to it: it quotes two scholars, two books, and two sites and there is a lot more to quote, i did all that in just a few hours research. I don't get why you are so keen on deleting this, it's is obvious that they are notable, verifiable and sourcable, even if it maybe is not done right now - but having an incomplete article regarding has never been an argument for deleting.--Striver - talk 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Striver, unlike last year's airline plots, these sayings have been around for over a millennium. If they are such central components of Shi'a Islam, why does it fall to you to gather and name them? If this goes any further,you may go down in history as one of the most important exegetes in the history of Shi'a Islam.Proabivouac 18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all None of these articles proves it deserves to exist. Beit Or 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to wikisource - Not the place for original text like this + commentary without sources Corpx 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. These articles are mostly quoteframs. --  Wasell ( D ) 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As said above, hadith are the secondary source of Islam, as well as notable historical documents. This one is regarding one very controversial issue, so it deserves an article. Granted, the article is not long, but that is a reason to expand, not delete. Also, why do you claim i have added original research? That implies that the text i have added is unsourcable, something evidently not true. A relevant argument would include that this hadith is either non-notable, or un-expandable, both not being the case. Ill expand a bit on the article right away. --Striver - talk 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Striver, the Shi'a vs. Sunni view sections of which you are so fond - and "vs." is the appropriate term here - are original research, as is most every other word in these articles besides the quoted sayings themselves. The parts that aren't OR are just quotes.Proabivouac 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that i have backed up the section with references, and expanded it, are you prepared to admit that you did not know what you were talking about when you claimed it was OR?--Striver - talk 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Striver, sources such as these are hardly credible. Question, do any of them use the term, "Hadith of the demise of Muhammad?" Google shows nothing,. The very titles of these articles are your original research.Proabivouac 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is credible sources for the purpose: documenting normal Shi'a views. It maybe a questionable source for neutral academic medieval history or rocket science, but for the purpose quoted, that is documenting Shi'a views of that particular hadith, it is a near perfect source. Regarding title, see my response above.--Striver - talk 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All references need to be quoted from reliable sources. Using polemic/apologetic websites to show divergence in views on hadith where over 1000 years of scholarly discourse exist on anything really notable, goes to prove that these hadith aren't notable as if they were then there would be scholarly debate that could be cited. → AA (talk) — 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bro, you expect me to source religious text, but not use religious and apologetic websites? C'mon. That sites contain online books that have been cited - what more do you expect? Quoting New York Times? The hadith have been included in the very first hadith collections, Sahih Bukhari, and there is volumes of commentary written about that source in it self - will you be happier if i link to one of those Arabic commentaries? Oh, that would also be linking to a site... maybe if just wrote "for reference, see Arabic commentary on Sahih Bukhar", would that make you happy? The content of the article will not be altered dramatically, the stated views are correct, and i added references in English, readily available online. --Striver - talk 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Striver, just because something appears on a Shi'a website doesn't make it "the Shi'a view." It's as if we had Jack Chick creating articles about the "Christian view" of various bible passages, and assuring us in all sincerity, bro, trust me, this is the Christian view, then pointing to websites that confirm this. If these websites are where you got your information (someone mentioned copyvios above) that's just another compelling reason the articles should be deleted.Proabivouac 18:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Somebody argued that the hadith should be merged into the main article. That is simply not practical, the main article simply glosses over the most important parts of his life, not even going into details of large event as the battle of Badr. It is only natural to have several articles with different scope when dealing with the biographies of a person that Michael H. Hart called "the most influential person in history". --Striver - talk 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep substantial cleanup required for most, but it should be an absolutely trivial matter to demonstrate note for these. MrZaius  talk  00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Working on it... --Striver - talk 01:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs cleanup and sourcing, not deletion. Edward321 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt anyone here would object to the articles being recreated if and when they are well sourced. Remember, sourcing isn't just a technicality, but the only way we have to verify that the information we're disseminating is accurate. Even the titles appear to be the inventions of the creator. As it is, we may be misinforming - even wildly misinforming - the public about traditional interpretations of Islamic scripture. If Wikipedia says something false about something so important, we harm readers, and degrade the encyclopedia's reputation by casting doubt upon everything else one might read here. To risk this is unethical, and trumps "I find this potentially interesting." A Wikipedia which doesn't get that is a Wikipedia which should be shut down.Proabivouac 03:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Title objection addressed above, that "delete when in doubt" is applicable to a living person's biographies (since they can sue), not this kind of articles. And no, i don't want to disseminate misinformation, studying Islam is one of my main interests, and letting people know about what i have read is something i value. If you find any particular statement i made questionable, then please by all means, contact me and i shall try to provide a source and better information. Much information and lots of sources is optimal, a summary lacking sources needs work, it is not a grounds for deleting. You are familiar with the concept "stub" are'nt you? Wikipedia is much better of having stubs for this kinds of articles then having nothing.--Striver - talk 11:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, whether they be stub articles or fully fledged FAs. If the article is about diseminating multiple views on a theme (e.g. interpretation of hadith or Quranic verse), then it must be shown that those views have been discussed as the main theme in reliable sources to pass the notability criteria. Stubs cannot be an excuse for creating unsourced articles and although in many cases it is not a reason for deletion, it does question the notability and verifiability of the information. The onus is on the editor who wishes to add the information to source it to show that it passes WP:V and WP:N. In the cases of these articles, that does not appear to be the case. → AA (talk) — 11:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did, did you miss the books, scholars and websites i quoted? What is the problem, explain it to me more simply, i don't get it. You expect an entire book written about this sole event, and nothing more? And if anything more is added to the book, then this hadith would not be it's "primary theme" and hence non-notable? I did quote books and scholars that use this narration in arguments, and even go as far as bashing other scholars view on this hadith - what more do you want? --Striver - talk 15:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, notable. Everyking 07:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide an argument of why you believe they are notable. Thanks. → AA (talk) — 12:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all are origional research, however in the future, please nominate them individually, and not as a group in case that they may improve.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all are orginal research. Harlowraman 16:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all view. They are all, to some extent, sourced and developing concepts from sources is not OR. If there are are POV concerns, and since I am not familiar with the subject matter I cannot comment on this, then the articles should be appropriately tagged for improvement requesting the addition of balancing material. In my view the better approach is fixing/improving not deleting. Bridgeplayer 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that there are thousands of these narrations and verses of the Qur'an and there are disagreements on many of the them between the Shia and Sunni. This does not alone make the hadith itself (as opposed to the event that is being narrated) notable. I think an analogy could be given from the Bible. We wouldn't expect an article on every verse of the Bible with a commentary on views expressed from different Christian/Jewish sects. → AA (talk) — 17:48, 15 August 2007 (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.