Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pledge of the Tree (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   keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pledge of the Tree
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was nominated for deletion in 2008 (Articles for deletion/Pledge of the Tree). It was kept because a number of people claimed that references for it existed. 3 years on and not one of those people have bothered to add any refs; the article remains utterly bare of any form of sourcing. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because WP:NOEFFORT is not a valid criterion for deletion. The same sources, such as, are still available, just like last time, had you complied with WP:BEFORE, item 4. Before claiming that the source I just cited is the only reference available, you should note that your "no sources" claim has already been disproved, and should research whether other paper references can be found at a university library. Chester Markel (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you have to revert a proposed deletion template back onto an article, it evidently isn't the sort of uncontroversial situation that WP:PROD is designed to handle. Chester Markel (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You've had 3 years, and so has everyone else. There were no sources then. There are no sources now William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just cited a source above. So your "no sources" claim is totally bogus. Chester Markel (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the claim is that the article has no sources, and has had none for 3 years (well, forever really). That claim is still true. Why not falsify it, if you can? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Delete unless someone else fixes the article" isn't policy, for obvious reasons. I refuse to support a dichotomy between editors obliged to do all of the work on articles, and deletionists who threaten to destroy articles unless the work is done. Non-BLP articles only get deleted when the topic isn't notable or isn't verifiable, or the article is completely useless. Chester Markel (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question If the reference Chester Markel notes is added to article page is there any reason to delete?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no longer hypothetical, since I've added the reference. Perhaps Mr. Connolley can explain whether there's any reason for deletion, other than that he couldn't be bothered to source the article himself. Chester Markel (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he could insist that the article be deleted unless every bit of text that isn't directly supported by the reference is removed from the article, before the end of the AFD... This behavior doesn't comport with the expectations of AFD nominators in the slightest. Chester Markel (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, the article now has three references. Can't AFD nominators be bothered to do a few minutes of research first? Chester Markel (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article has two refs, because one of your refs was worthless and has already been removed . Can't you be bothered to do a few minutes research before adding refs? And it really only has one, because another - - is completely useless and amounts to nothing more than a use of the phrase. Your one remaining ref -  - is just barely worth something; but it certainly isn't a source for the article, merely the phrase. Oh, and leave out the "Mr" nonsense, please William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why editors are sometimes unwilling to add references directly to articles during AFD: supporters of deletion often find some reason to remove them. It's so much easier to throw out "one of your refs was worthless" and similar proofs by assertion than actually explaining your position. Chester Markel (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - a couple of passing mentions in two late 19th Century books isn't convincing me of notability.--Scott Mac 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Slate magazine reference also indicates that a modern reliable source, certainly no friend of Islam, has recognized this particular feature of the faith. Chester Markel (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see that reference on the article. Where is it? Does it suggest the concept is notable?--Scott Mac 21:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because there aren't a lot of online sources in English doesn't necessarily mean this topic is notable. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to find print sources or sources in Arabic.   Has anyone contacted WikiProject Islam or WikiProject Languages for help?  Given this is about the founder of one of the world's most popular religions, I doubt that such souces can't be found.  BTW, if you believe Google search results, here's another source from the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, an academic journal published by the University of Chicago Press. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that makes no sense whatsoever to me. We need a) verification and b) an indication that this meets the GNG. We have currently neither. An assertion that verification MIGHT exist, isn't good enough. It also might not. Sure, if print sources actually exist, then the lack of on-line ones wouldn't be an issue. But do they? The article you cite (from 1942) doesn't seem to help me at all. Does it have any more than a passing mention? I can't access it, but if you can indicate what discussion it has on the topic, that might help us. Gesturing that sources "might be out there" - and faith statement about what you don't doubt, doesn't help me either. Where's the evidence of notability? I am willing to be convinced here.--Scott Mac 21:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, this reminds me a lot of an AfD from last week where I made similar argument.  Just because something may not be notable in English doesn't mean it's not notable.  Have you checked for any Arabic sources, Scott?  WP:PRESERVE says we should retain encyclopedic content (which appears to be the case here).  We don't have deadlines so the appropriate thing to do here is to add a {Refimprove} template to the article and move on.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't keep articles we can't verify because maybe, possibly, hypothetically, we might be able to verify them later. It is logically impossible to prove something can't be verified anyway. So you can't have an "evidence of absence" here. Unless there are sources to indicate this is verifiable and notable then by policy it must be deleted. You need to demonstrate that this is "encyclopedic content" before we decide to retain it - and you need evidence to do that. "It appears" "you believe" "maybe" do not constitute evidence. An article doesn't have to be perfect, it doesn't even have to be good, but it does have to have clear evidence of verifiability and notability. Now, does that evidence exist?--Scott Mac 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is how Wikipedia works. We have a huge backlogs of articles and content that lack cites and we don't delete them without a good reason.  Articles which can be fixed through the normal editing process should not be deleted.  I have 2 questions for you: Do you speak Arabic?  Have you gone to any Arabic university libraries to check for printed sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that most Wikipedians can't read arabic is not relevant, since no one has produced any Arabic sources and asserted that these indicate notability. Had they done that, you might have a point. But, to quote the WP:GNG "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." I'd say time has passed. Now, do you have sources to indicate notability (in whatever language you like)?--Scott Mac 23:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You apparently are having difficulty understanding what is being said here. No Arabic sources have been found because none of us (apparently) speak Arabic.  Do you understand that? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Recall WP:BEFORE, item 4, Scott. While proof of the absence of sources is impossible, the AFD nominator must be willing to assert in good faith that he made a reasonable effort to find sources, and note any that he did find, if he feels that the available references are insufficient. Connolley didn't do that. He simply started an AFD nomination asserting the total absence of sources. When a source was provided, he insisted that it had to be added to the article. When I added that and other sources to the article, Connolley claimed that the level of coverage wasn't sufficient, and that two of the references, including the source I initially presented, shouldn't have been added at all. The problem here is a continual moving of the goal posts by an editor simply unwilling to comply with the deletion policy. If Connolley wanted to assert that the obviously available sources weren't adequate, then he should have started from that position, after performing the pre-nomination research which the deletion policy requires. Chester Markel (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too interested in your quarrel with the nominator, who I've no interest in defending. However, there is simply no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources being presented here. That's what matters. Point me to the evidence - the rest is just personality stuff. Let's keep this objective.--Scott Mac 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per my comment below, the fact that WP:BEFORE wasn't meaningfully satisfied implies that if there were sources for this topic in Arabic, we wouldn't have found them, because no one fluent in Arabic and familiar with the Qur'an ever tried. There is actually no shortage of such editors associated with the relevant wikiproject. Contacting them first might have prevented this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources; WP:GNG  Chzz  ► 00:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguably, WP:BEFORE, item 4, requires a good-faith effort to find sources by an editor having sufficient competency to find references, should they be available. For this subject, that would imply fluency in Arabic and familiarity with secondary sources on the Qur'an. That obviously hasn't been done. Chester Markel (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguably. But requiring people to read Arabic BEFORE they nominate something is silly. Anyway, I'm uninterested in that. If sources can be produced before this nomination closes, fine. If not, we delete. As with any deleted article, if sources emerge, it can be recreated. If those defending this demonstrated that sources existed, rather than throwing brickbats at the nom, then we'd all do better.--Scott Mac 00:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * However, a request for assistance at the Islam wikiproject has now been posted. I would ask that editors refrain from pile-on in favor of deletion until there has been a reasonable opportunity for a response. If, ultimately, no better sources are forthcoming, then obviously the article will be deleted, if my sources are deemed inadequate. Chester Markel (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chzz: Do you speak Arabic? If not, how do you know that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting tiresome. Notability has been challenged. The onus is on you to give some reasoned and evidence-based defence of it. We don't keep things because no-one can read language x, and hypothetically if someone could, then evidence MIGHT sometime emerge.--Scott Mac 07:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is getting tiresome. Mohammed was probably the most influential person ever in the Arab world. That someone would write about his life doesn't seem like much of a stretch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mh, I think we have an article on the Muhammad, indeed several. That doesn't show that every phrase used in relation to him, and every oath sworn to him, is notable enough for a separate article. Your attempts to circumvent the needs for evidence by irrelevant argument and vague hand-waving, are solidly unconvincing.--Scott Mac 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's take a look at some Arabic sources Google produces 11,500 results for "بيعة الشجرة", which, according to the article, is one Arabic name for the topic. Translated literally, "بيعة الشجرة" means "allegiance tree"|en|%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A9. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that this is on the right track. Chester Markel (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Utterly useless because, for all you know, "بيعة الشجرة" could also be the name of a popular Iranian pop-star. G-hits on a term prove absolutely nothing. What we need is evidence not hope, and belief.--Scott Mac 01:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted these results to assist other editors with further research, not as proof of notability. The difficulty I'm having isn't reading them, since I can use Google's translation, but determining what, if any, meets WP:RS. Chester Markel (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I finally got around to reading the full article last night and I have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous AfDs I've seen in a while. No admin with half a brain is going to delete an article about world history just because most of the online sources aren't in English.  This AfD (and the arguments supporting it) seem pointy.  Until someone comes up with a legitimate reason to delete the article, I'm dropping out of the discussion.  If, for some strange reason, the article is deleted, I'll see you all at Deletion review.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you demonstrate that there are reliable sources in any other language? Doing so would be far more useful than the huffing, puffing and threats. So far all we have is your assertions and "it must be" conclusions. We work on evidence, verifiability, and reliable sources here. Nothing else counts.--Scott Mac 16:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't to post again in this discussion, but I happened to find this book published in 1914 by Frederick A Stokes Company that has significant coverage of this article's topic.[website which has become malicious] Can we please withdraw this AfD? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Arabic Wiki article associated with this also lacks adequate sourcing, and interestingly mentions no tree whatsoever.--Scott Mac 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: The Encyclopedia of Islam has an article on the subject -- see "Bayʿat al-Riḍwān" (Supplement, 2nd edition, by W. M. Watt), which mentions that this event is also known as "the pledge of the tree". And there are plenty of Google Books results, here and here. This should be more than enough to keep the article. I'd also suggest a rename to the "Pledge under the tree". Wiqi( 55 ) 18:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At last! A credible source. Much better. Which of the books mentioned in Google books are reliable and give more than passing mention to this?--Scott Mac 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you haven't withdrawn your "delete" opinion, Scott. Now, even though better reliable sources have been presented, we still have to continue this AFD, possibly for weeks. How does this benefit the project? Chester Markel (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SM, most of these sources should be reliable, as long as they reflect what is mentioned by early historians. There are also a number of accounts in Al-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, and other sources, suggesting that the pledge wasn't the Prophet's idea, and wasn't about "avenging Uthman's death" (Watt also speculates about this). So there is plenty of interesting and conflicting material that needs to be summarized in the article. Also, writers of early biographical dictionaries used this pledge to determine the time of conversion to Islam of those present, which makes it historically notable. Wiqi( 55 ) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, you've convinced me. Thanks.--Scott Mac 22:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, you refuse to cross out your "delete" comment. Now, an administrator glancing through the bolded portions of this AFD is likely to relist it. What legitimate purpose does maintaining your "delete" comment, even now, serve? Chester Markel (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: The notability of this article is unquestionable, holding an important incidence in Islamic history. I admit that the current condition of the article holds many inaccurate details, but that's what tagging is for. Yes, the article needs attention; but the discussion of references should be made before the AfD not after, especially when it was nominated with "Never mind, we'll have a waste-of-time AFD instead, how very useful" in the summary (because editors were disagreeing on the tagging).
 * To get to the point. Most issues were discussed above, but I see that what makes finding references very challenging is the name of the incidence itself. I can list, at least, 50 different names used for this incidence in English. The translation is really challenging, and anyone can check in any Arabic-English dictionary of the different meanings. It would be fruitful to keep this article for the last chance for improvement, and I'll bring a couple English books from famous scholarly publishers (on my next visit to the Middle-East).     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  05:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The notability of this article was not "unquestionable". It may well be that the subject is extremely notable, indeed it now looks like it might be. However, an article with no proper references, and none supplied after three years, except when questioned a couple of name checks in two 19th century sources, is a perfectly legitimate article to question. The point of an afd is to discuss those questions, and that discussion shows that something is notable and can be sources does not make the nomination illegitimate at all. Unfortunately, people have engaged in shouting at the nom, and asserting notability without evidence, rather than addressing the issues. Maybe WP:BEFORE needs to add "BEFORE you shout 'this is notable' and 'you are wrong' provide some flipping evidence". AFD is not "votes for deletion", it is articles for discussion - the discussion aimed at establishing whether or not it meets the inclusion criterion. So, as far as I see it, this discussion is entirely satisfactory and does not merit the rage and accusations that some have brought to it. Those have no place in a fruitful discussion.--Scott Mac 08:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD is not a process which is started any time an editor believes a subject might not be notable. WP:BEFORE clearly states that the nominator must make a good faith effort to find sources prior to bringing the article to AFD. Many editors are unhappy with Connolley's nomination because he didn't bother with the pre-nomination procedure, preferring to foist the work onto someone else.
 * For articles that actually should be retained, AFD can be a disruptive, time-wasting procedure. Exactly how much effort are most editors going to be willing to expend on improving an article when it has a "This article is being considered for deletion" banner hanging over it? Do most users enjoy the salient prospect of their work going up in smoke? Chester Markel (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Scott for not making myself clear enough, but you totally misunderstood my point. I meant that the article's notability is unquestionable in Islamic traditions, considering it an important historical incident. I explained that the difficulty of finding sources is caused by different spelling and translation. So if you're encouraging for a deletion, fine; I'll add the article again when I get reliable English sources from the Middle-East. You ignored the second part of my comment, and considered me unwelcome because of a misunderstanding in the first sentence? Chester expanded my point about the nomination, as a heated 2-day source-argument led to an AfD instead of a talkpage discussion.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. For the avoidance of doubt, now that sources have been provided, I am not arguing for deletion.--Scott Mac 09:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep details of the article may still need to be worked on, but looks like enough sources have been mentioned to support notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs a lot of work (may be we can start by first stubbing it). But, there are sources and this term is notable. »  nafSadh did say 14:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The title phrase gets 8 GScholar hits, which is borderline at best, but over 200 GBooks hits. Most of the GBooks appear to be to older volumes, indicating that this phrase may not be a common contemporary usage (and might also explain the lack of online sourcing). But notability is not temporary, and terms used by more-or-less scholarly writers one hundred to one hundred fifty years ago certainly merit encyclopedic notice. There could be a suitable merge target out there, but I didn't see one on a quick review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability has been adequately demonstrated. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (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.