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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi[edit]

Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (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)

Non notable hadith which fails GNG. Furthermore the article uses Unreliable self-published sources and information from primary sources to create a WP:COATRACK. There are 13 sources given in the article(I may edit this to add other sources if they are added during the deletion discussion). Given below is a rational as to why these fail to hold this article up. Closing admin should note that some voters who edit with a Pro-Shiite POV vote here with "Keep" but will not provide any counter arguments to substantiate this atrocious source misrepresentation in the article, nor will they present any rationale as to why this article is a complete OR Coatrack. These SPA's give some "Reliable" sources discussing this tradition. A simple click will show that as with other ten or twelve thousand common traditions, this too has been mentioned in three or four lines. Not a single reliable source can be found which can give indepth mention of this narration.

1. The first source is "The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century". It is an unreliable source penned by Adnan Oktar who is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Therefore this is an unreliable source and any article which exists based on this as a "scholarly source on Islam" should be deleted.
2. There are two references to the Quran. This is 100% coatrack, as the very title of the article is "The hadith of....". Including the references to Quran here are just a part of a coatrack.
3. Source number four is Sahih Bukhari, which is a Primary collection of traditions. This is pure 100% Original Research. Wikipedia forbids WP:OR due to this kind of issues, because editors can cherry pick information out of a primary source and then create an article based on that. There are more than Ten Thousand subjects covered in these Primary books, should every one of those subjects be now used to create a wikipedia topic?
4. Source number five is a hate book written by Akhtar Rizvi. Now although we can use, and should use, hate books to show the opinions of their writers, we should not use them as sources of "Scholarly opinion". The simple proof that this book is a hate book is that it uses the hate word "Qadiani". A simple analogy is that a book which uses the word "Dirty niggers" throughout the book "should not" and "will not" be used as a scholarly source in African American Articles. Same is the case with books using the word "Kike" throughout not being used as scholarly sources in "Semitic" articles.
5. Sources six and Seven are once again Primary sources from which information has been cherry picked through WP:OR.
6. Source number eight is quite a conundrum. According to this article the information is from the book "Nuzool Isa Ibn Maryam Akhir al-Zaman" written by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. Now when we try to find this book it appears to be un available on the internet in any form. Even Though many books have been uploaded in Arabic, there are hundreds which are not on the internet, so this is not a big deal. It does however raise some eyebrows. When we try to search for this book in google books, to see if "any OTHER scholar" has quoted Suyuti's opinion, we come up empty handed. Only "Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000" and "THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ELITE LIVES OF THE SCHOLARS, IMAMS & HADITH MASTERS: Biographies of The Imams & Scholars" have the name of this book in their index, and both of them refrain from giving any quotes etc. So even though this "may well" be a reliable book, up till now I am having trouble ascertaining whether it is even a real book or not.
7. Source number ten is "Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah". This appeared to be suspicious to me from the get go as this a highly polemical book written against the Shia's and Almost the entire book is written to show the good qualities in the first four caliphs. the book had literally nothing to do with Jesus and Imam Mahdi, but I have perused the book just in case. I was not able to find the Original Arabic version but rather an Urdu translation. the first Problem with this reference is that the book has more than one "Sections 11's" and none of those sections 11's is on page 254. The first is on page 477 and talkes about how a marriage was arranged while the second is on page794 and that talks about Ahl-al-Bayat, and nothing is said about Jesus. So this is either source misrepresentation, or something else. In the nutshell, this source also, does not support the article.
8. Source number 11 is "Fara'id al-Simtayn. p. 43". Now this too is a book which has almost nothing to do with jesus, but again AGF, I took the time to search for it and read it. Now page 43 as given in the scanned version of the original here ( you may have to scroll down and the pages are in Arabic Numeral, so the page number 43 will look like "3" and then a "trident like thingy". this is the image of the page you can see the page in top left, then use the orignal text to scroll to the required page) does not state anything about Jesus, or about the Imam Mahdi. The tradition is in Arabic, an Arabic user can understand it, but if you have a keyboard in Arabic you can type it in google translate and the translation will show that Imam Mahdi and Jesus are absent here. So again, source misrepresentation, or something like that.
9. Source 12 is again the same dubious book by Suyuti under a different name. Already discussed.
10. The last source is a "Shi'ite encyclopedia" now even if throw out the little fact that two bit encyclopedias like this are not sources. We are left with a HUGE book and no reference. It is like me asking for the directions to the Ayatollahs house and the reply being."The Ayatollah Bamboozly Al Bomby lives on the earth". Kinda hilarious to be frank.

So seeing all this, the article should be deleted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Page creator): The article should not be deleted and certainly passes GNG per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The talk page of the nominated deletion page was already asking the nominator to put his observation first. Instead discussing the issues at talk page, he has suddenly nominated the page for deletion. I request the nominator to first discuss the issues at talk page. Nannadeem (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin plz also note my edit-harassment at EN:WP after reading the comments of page deletion nominator that "Closing admin should note that some voters who edit with a Pro-Shiite POV vote here with Keep" Nannadeem (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are so many sources for this. Why was this even nominated in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saheehinfo: Me and some others have the same question here. Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This would be a great article to keep, but I'd like to see a "background" section added that gives more context than the lead to these narrations. -Darouet (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (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.