Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadiths related to 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 no consensus. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hadiths related to Mut'ah
This was nominated for deletion in July 2005 (see the first nomination), but it passed. Since that time, this article has been tagged with a template. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the article could ever have that template removed. As the nominator from the first AfD said, Wikipedia is not a source for hadiths, but that's exactly what this article is. It doesn't read very well and, as it has existed for the past fourteen months, is far from encyclopedic. A couple external links or a few paragraphs in another article (perhaps Nikah Mut‘ah) may work, but I fear this article is unsalvagable. --  tariq abjotu  01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If I saw that on recent articles, I would speedy tag it. Dave 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aaron 03:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * keep This is not a indiscriminate list of hadith, rather it is about "Hadiths related to Mut'ah" and a part of WikiProject Hadith. And it is evident from the article that it goes to great lenght in providing scholarly opinions and interpretations of those specific hadith. It is well sourced and a notable subject, quoting from the most prominent Islamic scholars. Yes, it needs to be cleaned up, and has not been done so in a long time since the topic is highly scholarly and hence, it lacks a large number of people editing on it, but that is not a valid reason to delete an article. I did made some improvements right before the afd, and ill make some more. --Striver 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, we do have List of hadith. --Striver 12:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article quotes Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Muhammad al-Bukhari, Ibn al-Qayyim, Abu Da'ud, Ibn Maja, Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahiya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shibli Nomani and several other classical and modern Islamic Scholars that have not received their own article yet, thus making it much more than a simple list, focusing heavily on classical and modern interpretations of the provided hadith.--Striver 12:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started to heavily clean up the article.--Striver 13:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. +Fin- 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Scholarly input aside, this article makes no sense at all to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It has been listed as needing cleanup for a very long time. If someone could please rewrite according to the manual of style, and with sufficient context that a non scholar can understand it, I might consider a keep vote. As it sits, I cannot determine even if the subject is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, ill fix it. Give me a few houres.--Striver 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So, i expanded the introduction section to address the issues raised. Is there anything else i should include in that section? --Striver 17:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks better. :) Dlohcierekim 18:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dlohcierekim, does that means that you now have a "keep" vote? --Striver 19:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Leaning that way-- not paper. Still thinking about it. I think the problem is the question of the notability of the subject. We have two editors far more knowledgeable than I on opposite sides of the discussion. JD raises an intersting point, but I think the article has potential to rise above that criticism. We still have some time to sort this out. :) Dlohcierekim 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, JD absatained from his vote, and considering this, what is your current vote? --Striver 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and transwiki any relevant material to wikisource.--Jersey Devil 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Motivation? Me and JD have a long history and he is prone to vote "delete" on my articles on the 9/11 articles. So i hope he knows what he is talking about this time, since last time he voted "delete" on a Islamic related article, he refered to Sahih Bukhari as a non-reliable source. --Striver 19:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to be a collection of quotes from hadith, such collections are usually stored a Wikisource. Don't see what is wrong with that.--Jersey Devil 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is more than so, it is mainly built on scholarly comments of the hadith. It could be argued that this is not the right place to dump hadith, but this is definitly the right place to present scholarly views on notable and controversial topics, and you can not present the scholars view without presenting the subject of the views. You can above see a partial list of the scholars that are quoted in this article. --Striver 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To servive, the article must be more than a collection of quotes. To be encyclopedic, the information should be summarized and recast in language a layman can follow. I believe this can be done. :) Dlohcierekim 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Revoke vote in respect for our muslim wikipedians I'm just going to revoke my vote so that it is not misinterpreted as solely because of Striver's contributions to the article. I still believe that this should be transwikied but ask that the closing admin not take my comments into regard when closing this afd.--Jersey Devil 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, i appreciate that. --Striver 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In respect for our Muslim Wikipedians...? I must be missing something. --  tariq abjotu  23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but thoroughly rewrite and Wikify. The prior AfD contained three votes, one saying the information is useful to understanding Islam. I believe this is so, but to be beneficial, the article must be written in a way that someone completely ignorant of the subject (me) can grasp the essentials. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. That work will be aided if suggestions for improvements are posted on the talk page. --Striver 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and edit. The topic is notable.  But it needs cleanup.  Dekar 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep awaiting re-editing. It should be more than simply a list of hadith, which, as noted elsewhere, belong on wikisource. However, given that interpretation is also being added in, along with reliable sources, I think it deserves to stay. Hornplease 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but possibly move the (newer) encyclopedic parts to other articles. As noted by the nominator, this is a badly written collection of primary sources and original research. It seems to me that any encyclopedic content on this subject would have to be in Nikah Mut‘ah or Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah, any more is probably content forking. Finally, although I agree with Striver that scholarly opinions on religious topics are generally encyclopedic (up to a certain level of detail), this article has only sporadic references to partisan religious websites, and not to statements by actual religious authorities (whoever these may be). Sandstein 06:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you do not regard Ibn Abu al-Hadid, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Muhammad al-Bukhari, Ibn al-Qayyim, Abu Da'ud, Ibn Maja, Ali ibn Abd-al-Malik al-Hindi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahiya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shibli Nomani as scholars, and the representation of their work as nothing more than OR from my part? Or have i missunderstood you? The difference between this article and Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah is already covered in the lead text. Thank you for aknowledging that latest editing is helpfull, and as is evident, i am continuing to reaseach and edit to heighten the articles quality.--Striver 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right about these sources - I didn't read the article closely enough to see them, although the... complicated layout of the article - including very extensive quotes and no inline references - make the sources difficult to discern and assess. The rest of my arguments stand, though. Sandstein 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree that the layout of the article is complicated. When this afd is over, if the article is kept, i will start the proces of spliting out some parts and start to re-arenge it to make the article more focused on the opinions. --Striver 16:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has been listed for cleanup since August of 2005, which is why I tried prodding it. If there's an encyclopedic article to be had here surely it would have presented itself by now. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am at fault for not cleaning it up earlier, i became busy with other topics and forgot about this, but i am correcting it. But surely lack of cleaning up can not be a valid reason to delete the entire article? Do you regard scholarly views about notable topics to be un-encyclopedic? --Striver 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, most of the article is not hadith quotes. --Striver 21:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to show the work i have put on it since the proding. --Striver 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * comment i would do it now, but since there is an ongoing afd, i can't rename this to Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah. --Striver 22:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. It is way POV. --Islamic 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * POV? In what way? --Striver 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is Shia POV.--Islamic 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And you want it deleted due to that? --Striver 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and edit. It may be POV or NPOV but there isn't written anything in its talk page. I remind you there is just one comment in Talk:Hadiths related to Mut'ah. Is it a new trend to delete article before trying to improve it?!!! Haha... You'll find just two persons has worked really on this article during 2006 if you look closely at its history. These are all of the editions which has done between January and September. How could an article be improved when nobody participate in it? It's our responsibility to work on the article not to delete it. --Accessible 04:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a big mess. it is beyond repare.--Truthpedia 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it is not. I know, since i am working on it. And the information in it is already usefull for those familiar with the topic. The only problem is that there is so much information that it takes time for a single editor to clean it all up. --Striver 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It just occured to me that Aisha's age at marriage contain even more hadith thah this article, and even less (almost none) scholarly comments, yet is nobody objecting to that article. I hope it is not due to the sensitive nature of this particular topic (legality of temporary marriages in Islam). --Striver 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic, doesn't appear to be a POV fork of Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah, and cleanup isn't grounds for RFD. Striver, I'll suggest some clean-up strategies on the talk page.  TheronJ 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  ITAQALLAH   16:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean per "there is to many hadith and this should be deleted", arguing that Aisha's age at marriage and List of hadith should also be deleted, no mater how many scholars are quoted, or per "no cleanup", ignoring the cleaup i have made so far? Or is it something more in line with the comments of user:Islamic? If the case is the later, then i suggest you help me improve the article, since the topic is surely important. --Striver 17:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the article still hasn't been made satisfactory since the first AfD, it shouldn't be on here. Very poor article, not useful to an average reader. Tom Stringham 01:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not strange to an article to be hard to grasp for the average reader, just take a look at Carminati-McLenaghan invariants, that article gave me 0 (zero) information. This is a higly specialized and scholarly topics, and you need to be familiar with mutliple terms and names to fully grasp all the content. That is hard to eliminate given the nature of the topic, but it has been considerably cleaned up and is still being done so. How much effort have you put in this article? --Striver 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, see the rest of the article in Category:Tensors in general relativity to appreciate that some articles are hard to make useful to an average reader.--Striver 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This one is cool. Sounds like Back to the Future.... --Striver 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case you are wondering: Yes, there is a scinece to it.--Striver 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, i know this article is having a hard time, its hard to comprehend the topic, but its due to its scholarly aspect, its controversial and some people rather have status quo and pretend the controversy is not there, rather pretend that Shi'a are just stupid for not accepting the majority view, and rather pretend that Shi'a can not possibly have any arguements. And there are very few people editing it, but is that really grounds for deletion? --Striver 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. The only way to see the veracity of "mut'ah" is to investigate the hadith relating to it. Otherwise, everything will be pure speculation and "original research". And we dont want that now, do we.--Zereshk 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please it is a encyclopedic sybject we can document here Yuckfoo 21:44, 21 September 2006 (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.