Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain

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The result was withdrawn. L Faraone 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain[edit]

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

Of the sixteen (technically seventeen) sources cited, three of them lead to highly partisan websites pushing a sectarian POV - two to al-islam and one to answering-ansar. Both fail WP:RS without a shadow of a doubt. The rest all lead to primary sources, many of which are cited improperly and at least one of which (I own a copy) appears to be a blatant forgery. The hadith itself does not possess enough coverage outside of Sunni-Shi'ite debate sites to pass WP:GNG, and the creation of this article itself seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV due to intent. This is, unfortunately, a recurring problem with articles on hadith created by User:Striver.

Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per User_talk:MezzoMezzo#Deletion_of_the_articles_related_to_Mut.27ah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I think this was a good attempt, but the OR and POV issues are rather concerning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the hadith is an important tradition and hence an article relating to it is warranted. If anything is required is improving the article and adding more citations. Also, the AFD details al-islam and answering-ansar "highly partisan websites pushing a sectarian POV" but discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_83#www.al-islam.org puts al-islam as relaible one also it has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress and so it can't be considered as an unreliable source.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link your provided for the discussion doesn't seem to include any sort of binding resolution regarding the website; despite it being quoted by other sources, I still allege that it fails RS per Wikipedia:Irs#Questionable_sources; it is a questionable source as it is clearly promotional in nature, in addition to the veracity of many of its claims being contested by rival Sunni websites. The resolution, in that case, would be to discount both this site and any rival Sunni sites like Ansar or sonsofsunnah except to present the views of that website itself. Beyond that, those two sources, even if reliable, can hardly support the notability of this hadith; I didn't find any mainstream scholarly coverage, thus it fails WP:SIGCOV. That isn't surprising because again, as I said, this is another example of Striver's original research. Per WP:OUTCOMES, I don't see why this case should be any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We can merge this article and the other similar articles to Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:25, 14 June 2013 (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.