Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Najd

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. Majorly (hot!) 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Najd[edit]

There are literally hundreds of thousands of hadiths, and there are also countless hadiths about this and that country or other. Are we going to have an article for each and every one of them? Slacker 13:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no degree of notability - at least where the references are concerned. One link appears to be to a punishment page, declaring that Allah will give them what they deserve!? The image is dubious as well, an edited image with the words Najd written across Arabia - it only links to this page. I suggest the image be deleted if the article is as well.LordHarris 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "there is lots of hadith" is not an argument for deleting, there are lots of trains as well, and we have a category:Trains full of them. This particular hadith is notable in that it is often quoted by anti-Whahabi Muslims, both Shi'a and Sunni and that there is controversy over it's meaning as properly demonstrated in the article. --Striver - talk 17:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... the category "Trains" does not list every single train that was in existence, and the fact that a hadith is used in some obscure polemical writings does not make it notable. I agree there are certain hadiths that mark the dividing lines between certain sects or that were used to justify important policies (e.g. Thaqalayn, Ghadir Khomm, 12 Caliphs), but this is not one of them. This hadith is not the reason people object to Wahhabism, and has had ZERO effect on the course of events. There is not a single country from that part of the world that doesn't have a hadith *somewhere* that mentions it, yet including an entire article on its different interpretations is just not encyclopedic. Otherwise, we would have to include "prophecies" about current events from the Bible as well. At most, this hadith could be mentioned in the Nejd article as part of a section on "Nejd in literature" or something of that sort. Slacker 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepeven if it was just historical, it would seem interesting as notable as expression of chauvanism. Given the additional present-day uses, its clearly a valid article, both notable, and sourced.DGG 09:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what evidence is there that it's notable? If it's been used in some obscure sectarian writings, is that notable enough for Wikipedia? Slacker 10:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*keep It exists, might be notable, but needs rewriting to be scholarly.--Sefringle 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Striver has created a very large number of similar articles, all of which presumably refer to something which exists, but the notability and POV of which are determined by him alone, as they are not sourced to reliable secondary sources. It is easy to say that these articles will be improved over time, but I've seen no evidence that this is the case, as they are created far faster than anyone can clean them up. It is actually better to have no article at all, especially on sensitive topics such as the interpretation of scripture, than one which is unsourced and assumes a particular religious point of view. Take note of the crudely crafted image which accompanies this article; this identifies the nation of Saudi Arabia as the home of the Islamic Antichrist.Proabivouac 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Striver.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to lack reliable sources. If you want an article created, but do not have access to reliable sources to do so, it would be better to suggest it on a wikiproject talk page.--Sefringle 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. semper fictilis 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sectarian contentions that "Allah will give them what they deserve" are at the core of current events of worldwide significance and hence certainly notable. A Google search suggests that this Hadith is still widely cited and discussed. Personally I find the article quite interesting, as it illustrates how different interpretations of the Hadith correspond to different political and doctrinal groups. There may be a sourcing problem here (I admit I don't know what constitutes a "reliable" source about controversial topics in Islamic theology or jurisprudence or whatever ), as well as a WP:NPOV issue (although different viewpoints are presented in the article), but that's not a reason to delete. Stammer 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article more or less speaks for itself about the notability of this particular hadith. I found a better map, and edited the article to reference it instead. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* How ironic that the map I created gets put on the page that I wanted to delete. I guess this article is here to stay, though just for the record, I'm going to say one more time, just because some obscure polemical writings refer tangentially to some hadith (among countless others they refer to) doesn't mean the hadith is notable. Also, the fact that the article has been here for 15 months yet the only other article that links to it is Striver's own list of hadiths should be enough to cast serious doubts on its alleged notability. Slacker 16:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Didn't notice that it was you that made that map. It does do a better job at indicating what area is the Najd/Nejd than the one that was there, that made it seem like it included all of Saudi Arabia. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is an ever-expanding Striverpedia within Wikipedia, expounding upon what for all we know (given the lack of secondary sources) is his personal view of the Sunni-Shi'a divide, and a plainly opinionated one. This is a serious abuse of Wikipedia, and it's being enabled by a relatively weak AfD process - insertion of unencyclopedic and polemic junk into well-trafficked articles will be modified or reverted, but create dozens of your own articles and you have more or less free reign to break all the rules.Proabivouac 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the "if the articles only claim of notability is an uncited statement that it is famous" rule. AKA no reliable sources for notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the list of hadiths that Striver and others have created. While, I still think that we should have a relatively high threshold of notability for including hadiths, I see the utility of having a page that discusses a hadith's sources and judgments on its authenticity. However, I suggest that such articles should only be created for important hadiths that are cited by other articles in wikipedia, particularly those that are used to support important legal or theological positions. I don't think that applies to this hadith, however. Slacker 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hadith are inherently notable.--Kirby♥time 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we were to keep only selected ones, ones with political or historical positions would be among the ones to keep. DGG 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.