Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invasion of Banu Nadir

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. causa sui (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Banu Nadir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be a WP:POVFORK with some serious misrepresentation of the sources and misleading statements as explained on talk page: Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir#POV fork. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Seems to be a continuence of a heated discussion between the nominator and the page's creator. There may need to be some clean-up, but that is not was AFD is for. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I requested deletion right after listing the issues with the article. I used the wrong tag though in the beginning. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep addressed users concerns in talk. User seems to be unhappy that the article does not say what he wants it to. Furthermore, if this was a POV fork as the user who nominated it claims. Then i would have to merge it, then we would find that the Banu Nadir article has become to big, and would need seperating anyway. As the Banu Nadir where involved in more than 1 military expedition in relation to Muhammad. Sources also make it clear that the Invasion of Banu nadir and the Banu Nadir are not the same thing, and authors like Mubrakpuri mention that there is such a thing called "Invasion of Banu Nadir". You argument is like saying the place called Badr and Battle of Badr should be 1, and if anyone makes an article called Battle of Badr, then it is a POV fork. Or Britain and the Battle of Britain should be 1. I will definately re write this article and remove Mubarakpuri's point of view (as users complained i over used him) and add more of Watt, Stillman, Muir, Kister e.t.c views. But then you will complain even more, as all soruces i used claim Muhammad attacked the tribe because an Angel told him, but those scholars i mentioned dont believe Muhammad is a prophet. You claim the article is factually inaccurate because it doesnt match what you want it to say. The claim that Maslmah verfied that the tribe wanted to kill Muhammad is denied by the previouslly mentioned scholars, and your claim in the talk to watt said, so and so, does not have a reference. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This AfD nomination isn't really based in policy, but appears to to be a rather pointy extension of arguments from the talkpage. A thorough review of the references seems to be all that's needed here, not deletion. Doc Tropics 16:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per others; this a a bad-faith AFD being used as part of a content disagreement William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have had to protect this page due to edit warring. It's only for 24 hours. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, needs cleanup but meets notability requirements. --BE TA 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It's definitely a POV fork, and I can see the argument that it just needs to be worked on, but I can also see the argument that it would be better to blow it up and start over based on the material and sources in the original article, since this one relies heavily on a bad source. I recommend that the creator step away from this one for a while. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will definately re write this article and remove Mubarakpuri's point of view , but then al-A will complain more--Misconceptions2 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only undue source. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The tribe already has it's own article, where the focus should be-on: Banu Nadir! It won't expand much if everyone avoids original research. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and discuss any pov problems on the talk page. It's a famous historical event, and fully justifies a separate article. There are, of course, discussions of it in scholarly sources for the last 13 centuries     DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 31 July 2011 (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.