Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine)


 * 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 MERGE to Sunni view of the Sahaba. I will do this by copy-paste; others can edit it at will. -Splash talk 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba (Sunni doctrine)

 * Delete, not encyclopedic and fork.--Jersey Devil 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment User Jersey Devil appears to be on the war path against User Striver by proposing all articles created by the latter for deletion. Sad. Lambiam 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been claimed that the four doctrine articles are pov forks. They are not. Each one is a distinct doctrine. They are not "split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject", they are all Sunni doctrines, it is not different views. It is several different doctrines, not views. Just like the doctrine of trinity and virgin birth are not the same thing. Further, all articles are linkt to the Sunni view article, and the Sunni view article links to them, so there is no risk of not finding them. However, i do admit that the articles need heavy editing. That is a reason to edit, not to delete.--Striver 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. I don't see how this merits it's own article, but it may belong somewhere.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sunni view of the Sahaba, which incidently is a fork of its own. Nonetheless, until that article is dealt with, this should be merged there. Pepsidrinka 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Not notable in its own right. This type of information should be in the main article itself. --Ter e nce Ong 07:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sunni view of the Sahaba per Pepsidrinka. Feezo (Talk)
 * Keep. This article needs cleaup and expansion, not deleting. Not mentioning the faults of the Sahaba is a major doctrine among Sunnis.--Striver 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jersey Devil stop trying to make a Point. COuld do with a rename though.. surely there is a better name? -Irishpunktom\talk 16:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. May I point out that there are already Uprightness of all Sahaba (Sunni doctrine), All Sahaba go to heaven (Sunni doctrine) and Sunni view of the Sahaba, all of which were created by User:Striver, and that's just the ones I found at first glance. Hello? Striver, please read WP:POVFORK, which clearly states that Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. And that goes double for four articles on what seems to be the same stance on the same subject! To top with, all of the rambling content in these articles could probably be merged to one or two paragraphs in Sahaba. Striver, please don't just create forks. Write in the main articles so that people can find (and edit!) the stuff. Sandstein 16:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge content to Sunni view of the Sahaba per Pepsidrinka and Feezo. No issue with the content, it's the awkward article name.  --Lockley 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into sunni view of sahaba... I don't really see evidence that this is a discrete doctrine... so, much better talked about in context. gren グレン 18:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per all above. -Oscar Arias 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * merge this page already seems to exist. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as above   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  22:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this one's a clear fork -- Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, don't understand your comment here. POV forks should be amalgamated into original article and deleted. --  Samir  [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|25px]]   (the scope)  23:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Pepsidrinka. Another inappropriate and needless fork. Green Giant 01:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as above, unencyclopedic forks of religious debate. Weregerbil 08:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Per Pepsidrinka Nigelthefish 15:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete. Despite any perceived or actual WP:POINT disruption by Nom, reading of art. and comments by Author, his talk page, and related AFD discussions suggests that Striver is of view that none of his artcles should ever be deleted. Seems to think this is always either a personal attack ("Don't take it personally" is Wiki advice) or an attack on the belief system to which he openly subscribes.
 * Merge per Pepsidrinka. --phh 01:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that contributors to these AFD discussions have treated each AFD individually, and different outcomes have resulted - some delete, some keep, some merge/improve - Striver's direct advocacy of voting by others for retention of all his AFD articles seems to me to suggest that :
 * 1) his articles generally warrant a high suspicion of WP:NPOV violation
 * 2) his (apparently passionate) votes and AFD comments should perhaps be accorded less weight
 * 3) his repetition of arguments that have been successfully and cogently countered in recent previous AFDs means those arguments should be afforded almost no weight at all.

These comments are NOT a reflection on Striver or the belief system with which he is aligned. I do note however that his stated goal is to present a specific POV. It seems to me therefore that this means :
 * 1) His contributions will need editing to ensure NPOV
 * 2) Some of the detailed material contributed will be better replaced by links to specialist web-sites - it is not Wiki's role to replicate all the information on the net, but provide concise summaries of key (notable) information (in this case to English-speaking readers) and links to appropriate specialist material

In summary, Wiki is not a soap-box, and Striver needs to be content with the consensus of the community on all his work. As it says at the bottom of every page : "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." :) WiKinny 18:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. &mdash; Jimbo Wales

There is a difference between writing pov and writnig about a pov. I dont appreciate incorrect accusations.--Striver 02:00, 25 March 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.