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. SpinningSpark 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Fatima tablet[edit]

Hadith of Fatima tablet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A non notable tradition narrated in the hadith. There are more than 7 HUNDRED THOUSAND traditions which have been narrated, twice that many if you include the Shi'te and Sunni traditions together. This is one of those 1.4 million narrations which does not stand out. No Reliable sources discuss it as being notable and it has never been presented as a unique tradition. Perhaps a simple mention in the main article worth a couple of lines, but a stand alone article? no please. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIC. SpyButeo (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  07:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Succession to Muhammad#Hadith, after moving the quote/hadith itself to WikiSource per WP:QUOTEFARM. Of the sources mentioned in the article, the first one only discusses the Tablet in general with a minor ref to the hadith as a source. The second and third are merely background for someone who supposedly copied the tablet. In the fourth source, the hadith is used to comment on Quran 9:36. Finally there is the fifth source, which is written in Persian, i.e. I have no idea. None of the sources that I can read, actually discuss the hadith itself. The opposite goes for the Tablet itself and especially Muhammad's successors, which are supposedly the subject of the tablet. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Hadith is notable base on sources. There is specific article in special journal (Hadith sience) about this Hadith ( Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language). In this book (page 237) explain Fatima tablet. Also, in pages of 84 and 85 of this book narrated the Hadith by Jabir ibn Abdullah. Furthermore, there are several reliable source in the article. The important point is notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (WP:NEXIST). Also, According to WP:GNG we can not merge the article because If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Saff V. (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

specific article is NOT a reliable source as it is a non notable magazine with a fringe readership. this book (page 237) which you say "Explains the tablet" gives it only 3 lines, and does not mention the "hadith of the tablet" at all. [1] also gives it 4-5 lines and is in itself a questionable source. With this kind of frivolous coverage this should be a SNOW for delete. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said your personal idea about these sources. Your idea is not important and Wikipedia criteria about sources is important. Please say your reasons base on Wikipedia rules. Why this source is questionable? Why the specific article is NOT a reliable source? Why it is not notable magazine? Why this magazine have fringe readership? Please answer clearly to these questions.Saff V. (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for asking. Let me explain, it may clean up the air a bit. You see this source is highly unreliable because the publishing house which published the book is not considered reliable. After considering giving you arguments explaining why they are unreliable I will just link you to their privacy policy. I laughed at it for like five minutes because they do not have a privacy policy lol. They just copypasted the template text. Take a look here Privacy Policy , you can see that they have just copypasted "This is where you would enter your content in the content table. You can edit this text in your administration. This is where you would enter your content in the content table. You can edit this text in your administration." again and again. seems Unreliable now, doesn't it. Secondly, the magazine is no notable because not many people read it, why you ask? well there can be many reasons, but most off all the main reason is that they don't like what the magazine prints, therefore it is not read by many people. so there you have it, all explained. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You consider the sources according to your idea not Wikipedia criteria. My previous questions still remain.Saff V. (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case your question shall remain long after this article has been deleted. I have explained everything in Simple English, what is the difficult part? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FreeatlastChitchat You said Sciences of Hadith journal is not notable magazine. This journal is indexed in ISC database and is scientific journal. Also, article content does not determine notability. According to this, the journal and its article don't have problem. If you can not read Persian, you can ask other user for approve the journal and its article.Saff V. (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Saff.V - no evidence sources are unreliable. Case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment above? you seem to be "infatuated" with this editor Saff V all of a sudden and have started to defend him on all of his articles that have been nominated for deletion. Perhaps you can show "how exactly" these sources are Reliable and "where" in them the subject is discussed "in detail". I checked the journal and found that they only give 3-4 lines to this subject and rest is just filler about other stuff. Did you find any in depth coverage? Just because you "like" an editor is not the reason to defend his work lol. Try to give some reasons for opposing deletion and back up your reasons with solid arguments instead of saying "as per". Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat I think that you are blind, there is one article about explanation of the Hadith but you said 3-4 lines. Please open your eye and see better. Saff V. (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually referring to that one article which explains it away in 3-4 lines and the rest of the article is just filler text. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The issue is notable, however the article should be improved with more reliable sources.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:21, 12 December 2015 (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.