Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sermon of the roar of a camel (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. John254 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sermon of the roar of a camel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously considered at AFD in June 2006 with an outcome of 'keep'; the basis for nomination was that the content could never move beyond being a dictionary definition. In August 2007, article was nominated for deletion by WP:PROD, a technically incorrect action for articles previously considered at AFD; the article appears here to correct this action. The reasoning behind second nomination for deletion was "Wikipedia is not a textbook of quotations from the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should it contain commentary on the primary sources." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It appears to be an entry on a notable sermon, and as has been noted in the first discussion, articles exist on comparable christian topics. That said, the article seems to need some work to better establish notability. bfigura (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bfigura's reasons above; call me crazy but the recent AfDs on various Islamic sermons smacks of WP:Point.... Zidel333 13:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per bfigura and zide. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs reworking y somebody more knowledgable.--Martin Wisse 14:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rework. the current analysis section is still undocumented, and it needs some some usable citations to accessible commentaries. I'm very glad this was brought here. Obviously all Qur'an verses are individually encyclopedic, just as with the NT and OT. 13 centuries of commentary is enough. Whether the individual hadith are is something I'm not certain about. some of those currently on PROD seem noteworthy enough to be articles from their historic or contemporary relevance. DGG (talk) 20:55, 17 August 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.