Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadiths regarding the legality of Nikah Mut'ah[edit]

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

I'm really not sure why a consensus wasn't achieved on the last AfD; I read it, but it just boggles the mind. Firstly, it's a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as even as a category, what's the purpose for including articles on individual hadith? Secondly, this list fails WP:GNG, as the topic specifically of hadith in regard to nikah fails WP:SIGCOV. I'm not talking about nikah itself; I'm talking about the topic of hadith in regard to nikah. Thirdly, there are only two sources, both of which are primary sources and the first one doesn't even specify page numbers! On top of that, hadith articles created by Striver have a history of being deleted en masse.

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) 07:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per User_talk:MezzoMezzo#Deletion_of_the_articles_related_to_Mut.27ah. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge - Unnecessary content fork of Nikah mut‘ah. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 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. It should also be noted that result of last AFDs have been negative:

keep, AFD #1, 19 July, 2005.
No Consensus, AFD #2, 14 September 2006.

Query What makes the hadith important? There isn't any scholarly coverage from reliable sources; it's just a link to answering-ansar, a blatantly non-RS source due to it's nature as a Shi'ite missionary website, and some primary sources which the creator obviously used in an attempt to push a certain POV. If reliable sources can be found establishing the notability of these individual ahadith then I wouldn't raise such an issue, but I tried and this clearly isn't a notable subject in and of itself. And as I mentioned elsewhere, per WP:OUTCOMES I don't see why this should be different from all the other hadith articles that were deleted. I'm not saying I won't budge on this; I'm just saying that, as of now, based on my attempts to find coverage and review of previous outcomes, I see this as a non-notable subject with an article based on OR and promoting a certain view. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can keep this article as the main article and merge the other cases which are nominated for deletion such as Hadith of Mut'ah and Imran ibn Husain to this one.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:24, 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.