Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the two weighty things


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadith of the two weighty things

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another one of Striver's many random articles about individual hadith not notable on their own. The article relies solely on primary sources, and is essentially original research consisting of a synthesis of those primary sources to subtley push a specific POV in the Sunni-Shi'a debate, like many of his other now-deleted articles. (He was still a good editor overall.) There is no substantial secondary source material to be found, and there really is no way to change this article to something other than a platform for editors to push one POV or the other. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination's claim that "There is no substantial secondary source material to be found..." seems to be blatantly false. See Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imāmī-Shiism, for example. Andrew (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrew Davidson, thanks for replying. I'm looking at that now, and both the page you linked to as well as the surrounding pages don't show up for me. Additionally, is the secondary source material substantial? Have you found more than just this one mention? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That source states, inter alia, "Among these [traditions], a very important place is reserved for hadith al-thaqalayn (the tradition about the two weighty things)...". Another source says "Hadith-i thaqalayn is one of the most strongly established hadiths...".  Entire books are written specifically about this hadith in Arabic.  Andrew (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, we have two English sources here. I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but per WP:SIGCOV, do two sources support notability? My first inclination would be no. I might be wrong on that, I'm just stating my initial reaction. Now regarding the Arabic books, can you refer me (and anyone else interested in this discussion) to them? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Andrew Davidson, I am able to view the first source you posted now. The first one discusses this hadith across three pages, the second source discusses it in a list across half of one page and half of another. I am seeing an issue here with notability; each one of those books mentions this hadith along with a list of others. Will we say that every hadith mentioned in both books is notable now? It seems like a WP:N problem to me. Some of the hadith mentioned there don't already have Wikipedia articles, ostensibly because they aren't notable enough on their own. I can see those two sources adding positively to the articles on Succession to Muhammad and Shia–Sunni relations, for example, as it pertains to both subjects, but will we create articles on every single hadith mentioned in more than one book? Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Kitab al-Kafi both each have tens of thousands of narrations, and between Sunnis and Shias there are several dozen books of hadith spanning volumes. Choosing to create an article about this hadith - which seems to only have two reliable mentions - would either be inconsistent or would open a door for an article about every random hadith to be created. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". The slippery slope argument is therefore weak. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're correct, there is no limit to the number of articles. As I mentioned in my last line, it would either open such a door (slippery slope) or it would be inconsistent, because here's the reality: nobody is going to create articles for the other tens of thousands of hadith that might have three sources mentioning them instead of two, or four.
 * Hence my original point, and I guess I will drop it after this as I fear I might become annoying: were it not for Striver's efforts to create this and many other articles on non-notable subjects solely to push his own unique, personal views (seriously, a lot of articles), nobody ever would have because the subject simply isn't notable on its own.MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This individual hadith is notable and it shouldn't be deleted. Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 14:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:59, 1 May 2014 (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.