Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Abu Bakr


 * 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 Keep or merge, a keep vs. merge debate can be done outside of AfD. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view of Abu Bakr
Delete Attack page, almost A6 but declined by admin b/c "not obvious deletion", POV fork, anything useful should be slightly merged to Abu Bakr. Though I know nothing about Islam, for this one I don't need to. It should have gone on CSD A6. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note as some of you may have noticed, there's a bunch of "Shi'a view on X" POV forks around emanating from the same source. I reserve opinion on the rest for now. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are quite a few Shi'a view on X articles, but this one may be justified. There is a significant amount of information on this subject that can be verified and it serves as a daughter article to Abu Bakr. joturn e r 13:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Short of turning this AfD into a circus, I will make one elaboration - and limit myself to that. What if we had an article called Jewish view of Hitler and the contents was "Jews think Hitler was a murdering f'ing bleep" and it was verified and had citation to works in the same vein - would we keep it? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would rewrite to remove the expletives, and move it into the main Adolf Hitler article. I thought that was the point of NPOV encyclopaedia articles, that they could present differing points of view on a subject in the same article, hopefully in a balanced manner. Paddles 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete. The contrast between Sunni and Shi'a views on Abu Bakr properly belongs within the Abu Bakr main article, similarly to this section in the article on Mary the mother of Jesus. Same applies to the other Shi'a view on X articles. Paddles 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I've tried to explain elsewhere in the present sudden eruption of nominations for deletion of articles generically titled "(Muslim denomination)'s view of X", this is not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, but instead legitimate article spinout (see Content forking). Note, by the way, that "Jewish" is meant here in the religious sense of "Judaism"; in fact, the page redirects to Judaism's view of Jesus. Supposing that there was such a thing as Judaism's view of Hitler, and assuming it was notable (unlike – in my opinion – Christian views of Hanukkah) and verifiable, yes, then Wikipedia should report on it. And if that view implies that Hitler was wicked, let it be so reported. --Lambiam Talk 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - IN the abscence of a Sunni view of Abu Bakr, and the small size of the Abu Bakr page itself - there is no real reason not to merge it as one, for now at least. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Irishpunktom. Vizjim 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Remark. For this article I get a word count of 1003 words (not counting boilerplate, ToC and [edit] buttons). For the main article Abu Bakr without the Shi'a view section I find likewise 1340 words. That means that after the proposed merge this one section will constitute about 43% of the article (1003/(1340+1003) × 100%), which is clearly out of balance. --Lambiam Talk 16:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely we're not merging all of this. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's always a problem with AfD discussions that result in merge. Who is supposed to actually perform the merge? The closing admin? In general it requires some expertise on the topic to do this right. In the present case there is a very simple implementation of a possible merge outcome, and if I was the closing admin I'd take the easy way out and let the normal Wikipedia collective process take care of hopefully restoring the balance. (Look at what happened with the outcome of Articles for deletion/Anti-Otaku.) --Lambiam Talk 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not a big deal with merging all of this. It will be a little less than half at the moment, but the abu Bakr page has been in need of a general expansion for some time, this might spur it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete/Merge fork article, despite what is said about these types of "Shia view" articles they didn't "become to large in the main article" and grew naturally with a consensus to make a subpage. Usually what happens in these types of articles, if you actually see the page histories of the main pages, is that the User:Striver insists on place large amounts of POV content that that engulfs the entire article and then gets into a dispute with other users about it, namely User:Zora and a few others, and then out of frustration Zora or others involved simply make or allow a subpage to stop the content from engulfing the entire main article. This is from the page history of Abu Bakr:


 * rv - Striver, it's POV to remove anything favorable to Abu Bakr User:Zora
 * NPOV. User:AladdinSE
 * Trying again for NPOV User:Zora
 * Reverted edits of Striver to last version by AladdinSE. See Talk by User:AladdinSE
 * rv - no evidence that the Shi'a DO believe that -- please defend on talk page User:Zora


 * There are other cases of this in the page history, ultimately Striver sees that he can not get his way in the article and creates this page. And the users in the main article don't really care because at least it gets Striver off of adding material in the main article.--Jersey Devil 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the talk page, in particular Archive 1, where you can see that Striver may be awkward as an editor but is not particularly uncooperative and very definitely willing to argue with (whether you agree or not) mostly reasonable arguments for a Wikipedia editor. You can also see a recurring confusion between Striver's desire to include a report on what the Shi'a view is (which in and by itself is or should be a neutral issue) and the desire of some others to report "what actually happened" (which almost certainly leads to POV texts, one way or another). In light of the present discussion this contribution in the Archive – a perfect example of the confusion referred to – is interesting: . --Lambiam Talk 19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jersey Devil, despite your less than perfect relationship with Striver, this is not the place to continue your feud with him. Comment on the article, not on the editor(s). Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate. joturn e r 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if anything can be considered an "attack" on my edit, all I am trying to do is show how these articles are not articles that started in the main articles and became to large to the point where a new page was created but rather because the user did not get his way in the original article he created these pages to avoid reverts to his edits which is the very definition of a fork article. I also find it remarkable how Lambiam stating I am on a "crusade" everywhere I go is not considered an attack. Furthermore, to Lambian, no he is not "reasonable" if you actually see the page history you see that he continues to revert regardless of the fact that the clear consensus is against the content that he puts in the article.--Jersey Devil 02:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We see the same facts but assess them differently. You have now sixty-one times nominated an article started by Striver for deletion. My attention was first drawn to your anti-Striver behaviour when I saw an article listed on AfD and just couldn't get why it was nominated. I have said this before, and I think so even more now: your judgment is clouded when it comes to this one particular editor. --Lambiam Talk 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow - are you serious? Sixty-one times? I think I just walked into some serious beef. Were all 61 articles in the "Shi'a view on X" format? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it started with The Citizens' Commission on 9-11. See further the full list. --Lambiam Talk 23:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep as Lambiam pointed out, i participiated at lenght in the disccusion in the main page, and it all boiled down that having the Shi'a view fully represented in detail would give it undue weight, in short, all informatinon does not fitt there. The problem is not what happened, but what Shi'a view what happened. And that aspekt does not fitt in the articles main page. So per my arguement in Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali, i vote keep. Further, it does not matter how the article whas created, the only thing that matters is if the article is a legitimate and encylopedic topic. And it is. --Striver 09:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for Zora's comment regarding that this article was not developed in the Abu Bakr article, and then broken out of it, it is not a valid arguement for deleting this article as is now, a articles history is never grounds for deleting, what matters is how it is now. And as it is now, it is to much information to include in the main article whitout un-balancing it. Regardless of if it was "mergeable" when created, what needs to be consider is if it is to large to merge into the main article witout unbalancing it as is now. And yet again, see Jesus, Jewish view of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus --Striver 09:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge back into Abu Bakr and redirect. That page can, and should, report on both the Shi'a and Sunni views of the man without having to resort to POV forking.  Edit conflicts on Wikipedia should not be solved by disagreeing editors each forking off their own page.  --Hyperbole 02:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete per Paddles. --CRGreathouse 03:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back and delete as WP:POVFORK, like virtually all articles of the type "X's view of Y". Sandstein 16:31, 21 May 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.