Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr (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 Speedy keep. The previous AFD was closed 22 hours before this was opened with the closing admin suggesting "give it some time". If an editor feels the original no consensus close (or this one, for that matter) was improperly decided, deletion review exists to consider that issue, but relisting this quickly is unlikely to result in constructive discussion. Non admin closure, not really per policy, but needing to happen. Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article represents the Shia point of view which sharply contradicts with the foundation of the faith of the mainstream (Sunni) Islam. Worldwide Sunni Muslims (comprising 90% of world Muslims) believe that this list is nothing but a fabrication by the Shia sect. This is not new; this has been going on for centuries. This online encyclopedia is NOT the proper place for those kinds of extremely controversial issues, especially when they represent points of views of a minor sect (Shia) of the global religion of Islam. Of course the Shia scholars will continue to claim that their views and deviant beliefs are supported by Sunni references and sources. However, all they have been doing over centuries is misinterpreting those references, taking them out of context and twisting them to support their views. They've had a historical enmity towards the 3 rightly-guided Caliphs of Islam which are revered by over 1.2 Billions Sunni Muslims and have been revered for the past 14 centuries, while Sunnis never carry any sort of enmity towards the sacred figures revered by the Shia such as Ali ibn Abi Talib or Fatimah. There is not one single Sunni Muslim or Sunni scholar that will accept the Shia interpretations of the references otherwise, if they do, then over a Billion Sunni Muslim will convert happily into Shia. Therefore, further attempts to quote the so called Sunni sources to support those Shia views should be discredited and not to be accepted a valid argument in any way. According to Sunni Islam, this list does not even exist. Ali, Fatimah and all those Sahaba enlisted in this list have given their full allegiance to Abu Bakr and to believe that they were at odds with him is totally absurd. Again WIKIPEDIA is NOT the proper place for those minority views. Thank you TrueWisdom1 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)TrueWisdom1

Creating deletion discussion page for List of Sahaba not giving bay'ah to Abu Bakr because this controversial article represents a point of view of the Shia sect which contradicts with the foundation of faith of global (Sunni) Islam (over 90% of world Muslims).


 * Speedy keep and close last afd closed 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC), this one was created on 03:00, 22 January 2007, 22 hours later. As for the merits of nom, first known that Sahih Bukhari is the "most Sahih Book after the Qur'an" according to sunnis ummah.net, islamonline.com, sunnah.org, yarehman.com, inter-islam.org, fatwa-online.com and then please read this from said collection:
 * 'She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death).'''

--Striver - talk 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry but 10% of muslims is a significant number of people (which is millions of people) and is very notable.--Dacium 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. This article should not be deleted based on the fact that it represents a differing viewpoint. Such a nomination is very unjust. Nlsanand 04:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to nomination being that it is a minority view. We have article about minority views with far fewer adherents. Edison 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If the problem is that these views are disputed by Sunnis, then that should be reflected in the article, having proper regard for the rules about point of view. Simply having an article about minority views is hardly a problem; there are all sorts of articles about much smaller religious groups (and their views). --Markdsgraham 05:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I have no idea if it is notable or not, but re-nominating it less than a day after a previous AfD points very strongly to a WP:POINT violation. Not to mention that nominator does not present any reasion for deletion other than he doesn't like it. Serious WP:POV concerns with this nomination. Resolute 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - just because there appears to be a POV problem with the article doesn't mean that it should be deleted. - Iotha 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I am inclined to agree with the view expressed in the first nomination that this article is nothing more than a POV fork of Shia view of Abu Bakr and the approprate way to handle it is to merge into Shia view of Abu Bakr. Agree that the current nomination doesn't cite a valid reason to delete. --Shirahadasha 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument that Wikipedia is not a place for minority views is without any support. JCO312 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that it will have differing viewpoints than your own.  --Dennisthe2 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep and close Listing this was not appropriate, as we all have said. I note that the nominator has made no other contributions to WP other than the nomination of this article for deletion. DGG 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - There's dozens of arguments I could bring up regarding the merits of this article, but they're all rendered moot by the clear evidence that this is a bad faith nomination. I also have serious questions as to whether or not the nominator is able to suspend their point of view in order to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The title could use some work, but otherwise it's ok with me. Just H 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * delete, this list is an attempt by early Shia writers to distort history, it is NOT a historical fact! is this encyclopedia supposed to be grounds for any group to express their own point view of history? I don't see one single valid reason to keep the Shia's own interpretation of the Bay'ah process. Why is the Sunni view getting deleted from this article? The Sunni view is that this list is bogus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.8.73 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment And the Roman Catholic view is that the Protestant Reformation is bogus, but we are not going to delete all articles about Martin Luther, Anglicans,  Presbyterians,  and other protestant religions and religious personages. The Jewish view is that the Christian scriptures and religious beliefs are bogus, yet we will probably be keeping them.  Wikipedia is not the source for Truth, just for things notable enough that people write about them.  Articles about a religion must be written in a non-point of view way, so they never say "The truth is.." but instead say "Followers of the religion believe that....". It would be completely appropriate to add to the article reliable and verifiable sources which claim that each and every one of the "Sahaba" gave "bay'ah" to "Abu Bakr" so as to make the article NPOV. This could be integrated throuout the article, or incorporated in a "Criticism" or "Alternative views" section if that works better stylistically. A big problem is that ancient religious doctrines and disputes are unlikely to have very many sources for such issues which are independent of the followers of the religion, and there are unlikely to be any surviving manuscripts of first hand accounts. Edison 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reason why "the Sunni view [is] getting deleted from this article" is because the Sunni view consists of deleting the bulk of the content from this article. Regardless of right or wrong, this specific believe does exist, is notable, and can be verified as such.  Whether or not it is right or true is something that Wikipedia does not handle. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad faith Nomination, so Reject this AfD per closing admin of last AfD - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:18, 23 January 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.