Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprightness of all Sahaba

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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uprightness of all Sahaba[edit]

Several reasons here. Firstly, large chunks of it read like original research - someone's personal essay - particularly the Shia section. This violates WP:OR. That particular section is also completely unreferenced: see WP:V. Much of the article is heavily POV: take sentences such as "Shi'a reject this view with multiple arguments especially since there is absolutely no evidence in the Qur'an of any such immunity with regards to all the companions of Muhammad nor the sub companion groups who followed later in history as being infallible and free from sin", and furthermore "Did not the archers leave their stations to collect the booty and allowed Khalid Bin Walid to advance onto the Muslim Army from the rear? So can these greedy people who disobeyed the Prophet be considered as pious? Disobedience of the Prophet is disobedience of Allah!". Not only is this POV but the tone is completely unencyclopaedic. Lastly, I would also question this term's notability. It only gets 100 ghits, most of which seem to be Wikipedia and various mirrors such as Answers. Moreschi 13:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Clean up I have to agree that in its current state the article is inadequate but the topic can be important enough to deserve an article. TSO1D 14:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please do not missuse afd as an RFC aimed at cleaning up an article. And obviously, it is not a term, it is a concept, and its existance it well established even in the present bad state the article is in. Nom, speedy withdraw this mal-placed action and help me clean it up from POV and OR. --Striver 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep so it can be improved. We need good articles on topics like these, although this is not a well constructed or well-balanced article. We should encourage people who can do articles on these topics to do good ones, not discourage them because they do not yet know our style. DGG 06:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please tag it properly dont delete it.RaveenS 21:58, 13 December 2006 (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.