Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminology used in the Hanbali Madhab


 * 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Terminology used in the Hanbali Madhab

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Its all original research Pass a Method   talk  08:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 10.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  08:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Comment - The fact that the article is entirely composed of original research is not necessarily a reason to delete, as there may be a possibility for the article to be improved. The question is whether or not it can be improved with secondary research. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as titled, it implies a glossary, which violates WP:LIST and WP:NOT. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The article seems to be pushing a certain point of view. There are no sources cited.  Also a discussion of terminology in Arabic is probably beyond the scope of English WP. BayShrimp (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. There is no need for voters to find secondary research unless they want to edit the article themselves. Otherwise, it is an unsourced article. SL93 (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2013 (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.