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


 * 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 Delete. A tally of the "votes" in the instance yields a count of 6d/3k (counting the merge vote as a species of keep, and considering the "merge/delete" vote an abstention for this purpose), which is within the range for discretionary deletion. My own reading of the article finds it interlaced with plainly biased language from the outset, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. In my judgment, if NPOV treatment of this topic at this title is possible, it is better to have it begin ex nihilo than from this version. In consideration of those who feel this article contains valid information, I will provide the content for anyone who wishes to undertake an immediate NPOV incorporation of this information into Abu Huraira. Xoloz 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a view of Abu Huraira
Delete Article is inherently POV, a fork, as well as loaded with POV language, a lot of original research. Jersey Devil 04:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Fork. Awful name. If anyone has familiarity with the topic, please let us know if there's anything useful to merge into the regular article on this person. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete along with all the other "Shi'a view of..." articles. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and I would say the same for the other "Shi'a view of..." articles as M1ss1ontomars2k4. Beno1000 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful with Abu Huraira and redirect, which would also be a good idea for Sunni view of Abu Huraira, by the way. David Sneek 16:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete, and as David Sneek says, Sunni view of Abu Huraira should get the same. Flammifer 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not anymore POV than for example Jewish view of Jesus but instead legitimate article spinout (see Content forking). --Lambiam Talk 01:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently flawed. Equendil 20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my arguementation at Articles for deletion/Shi'a view of Ali--Striver 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Abd al-Rahman ibn Sakhr. I have to say that this needs serious editing; much of it is on the brink of incoherence.  We should paraphrase, instead of including, the quotes, and/or link to somewhere they can be found; this would significantly shorten the article to make it less likely to overwhelm the main article.  --Hyperbole 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete along with other "Shi'a/Sunni view of" articles: divisive, inherently POV. It's also in need of major revision, but deleting should take care of that. --CRGreathouse 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * coment Could anyone answer this: Why are the " view of x" articles pov forks in your view, while Christian views of Jesus and Jewish view of Jesus not POV forks? Thanks for answering. --Striver 09:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are two reasons for this:
 * First of all, whenever it is possible, the different views on a certain person are best presented together in one article. That way people who look up the subject will not get a one-sided perspective, but a general overview. Only if the article would get extremely long by presenting all interpretations - as in the case of Jesus - is a fork acceptable. I do not believe this is true for the Abu Huraira article.
 * Secondly, I'm certain you'll agree that Jesus is a far more important figure within Christianity than Abu Huraira is within either the Sunni or the Shia branches of Islam.
 * David Sneek 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not counting boilerplate material, the Islam box, external links, categories and edit buttons, the body of the Abu Huraira article has at the moment a word count of 1197, and leaving out the Muslim view section 1120. After merging in the two view articles, the word count goes up to 3375. This means that in a merged version the Muslim view section will occupy two thirds of the article, which is disproportional. Some would say: prune it!, but who is going to prune this? The closing administrator? Editor David Sneek? It is not immediately obvious to me why the relative importance of the figure should have a bearing on the issue. --Lambiam Talk 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be a problem to shorten this article and turn it into a more useful section in the main Abu Huraira article: the three comical ahadith need not to be quoted in full (one would suffice), and the sections Umar beat, lashed, and called Abu Hurraira a liar, Muawiya rewarded Abu Hurairah for insulting Ali and It is not only the Shi'as who find Abu Huraira unreliable can go because they are entirely copied from this site. That would leave only 300 or 400 words. David Sneek 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean they are copyvio, you are not correct. If you mean the info is not important since they are in a prominent Shi'a source, then i dont agree. If you want to edit the text to be more diss-similar to that link, please do. But deleting it? No way. --Striver 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that it is a copyvio; I just do not believe it is wikipedia's job to copy other sources - not even prominent ones, and especially not when they represent a very specific POV. Instead, a short summary would be much better. For example, section 3 could be put like this: "According to Peshawar Nights by the early twentieth century Shia scholar Sultanu'l-Wa'izin Shirazi, Muawiya once rewarded Abu Hurairah for insulting Ali ". David Sneek 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, i do agree that the article is in need of attention, but we are not talking about that, we are talking about deleting it altogheter. And that is not right to do, it would be given undue weight in the main article, and the Shi'a deserve to have their views detailed. --Striver 12:06, 19 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.