Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page appears to be solely sourced to religious websites, making its contents wholly unverifiable and functionally useless from the perspective of Wikipedia's content standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion,  and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this nomination is flawed. We have many articles about Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops which are sourced entirely to sources related to their respective denominations. There are a few companions of the prophet about whom very little is known today, but most have been discussed constantly in Islamic scholarship for more than 1400 years because of their critical role in the transmission of Hadith. In any case there are sufficient sources in English for this to be a GNG pass (Google book search) without even looking in Arabic or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Google books shows two footnotes. Scholar hints at a few mentions, but the relevant passages are not apparent. There is nothing to currently indicate the presence of any non-trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources. The page is  just as poorly supported in its Arabic version. The other premise is also invalid. This individual did not play a major role in any tradition, because he ostensibly died in the Battle of Yamama, and thus was prevented from ever passing on whatever material he might have recollected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * simply false. I find multiple sources (not including the ones I enumerate below) citing him as the source of Hadith. You’re just making it up. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Battle of Yamama. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment it’s not true that the subject appears only in a couple of footnotes in a google book search. In English I get multiple pieces of coverage, including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with other instances too. From this we learn that the subject, on account of his exceptional knowledge of the Quran, led the community in prayer in Medina before Muhammad himself arrived, and that the caliph Omar stated that, had he lived, he would have made him his successor. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While some Arabic news sources are reasonably sound sources for local news, and Youm 7 is generally speaking a respected publication, I don't think Arabic news sources are realistically reliable sources for Islamic biographies, and that Wikisource text is a primary source, so not super useful in of itself without supporting coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mccapra, You may be right in your overall assessment, but you should get rid of the first book that you list above. It lists Lulu, a well known self-publishing outfit, as its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be interesting to see the nominator respond to the newly identified sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Mccapra has shown that there are a number of sources. Furius (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.