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 delete. The problem is not the block quotes (well, it shouldn't be--anyone who thinks that that is a reason for deletion needs to stay away from AfD), but the lack of reliable secondary sources, as is pointed out by the nominator and others. It is possible that this is potentially a highly notable topic, but the article (in writing and referencing) is so poor that it's not possible to state this with confidence. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr[edit]

Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr (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)

This article should be deleted for the following reasons:

1. The vast majority of the article is block quotes that fall under 2 areas:
   The 1st block quote area is that of Sunni scholars reproducing the hadiths contents. This is block quoting primary information, but presenting it as the words of these scholars (which it isn't) to deceptively give the impression that this issue is worthy of being an article because notable scholars quote it. These scholars have only quoted it (as numerous scholars will quote any single hadith regularly), rather than mention it any further and the fact that they don't actually discuss their interpretation of the hadith is evidence that it lacks notability. By the standard set by this wiki article, we can expect many thousands of hadiths to have their own articles because many scholars have quoted single hadiths.
   The 2nd block quote area is a single shia scholar named Husain Mohammad Jafri. In fact, his quotes make up the majority of the article and it is easy to see that this articles creation was driven by a sectarian propaganda agenda.
2. One of the references is Answering-Ansar.org, which is clearly a shia sectarian site, whose scholarly credentials (hence eligibility to be cited on wiki) are questionable. This again supports the suspicion that this articles creation was driven by a sectarian propaganda agenda.
3. The articles lack of notability seems to have been unwittingly alluded to by the editor/s with the words "Although the narration is prominently quoted and referred to, it is not given any formal name, in contrast to other hadith such as the Hadith of the pond of Khumm or the Hadith of Qur'an and Sunnah." But what the editor's won’t admit is that this hadith has no name exactly because it isn't historically notable to begin with. Hence, it was left to the editor/s to give us a name for this notable hadith...how fitting! Shia are obviously, for sectarian purposes, opposed to every succession of Muhammad that precluded the appointment of Ali; however, their position is well covered in numerous other wiki articles that have the requisite notability – unlike this obscure hadith.
4. Apart from block quoting the actual text of the hadith and the opinions of 1 shia scholar, the article makes mention of no other opinions on the hadith, whether Western, Sunni, or any other scholarly opinions. This simply adds to the lack of notability of the article.
5. Strangely, we are not even told where the source of this hadith even comes from i.e. which hadith collection, such as Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari etc. So if we are not told of the hadith source then we can't even determine whether this hadith is authentic or fabricated. If it is fabricated then creating a wiki article about it would probably be unwarranted without specifying its authenticity, since this can fool people by giving them the impression that it must be automatically authentic because it is accepted on wikipedia.
6. It can be seen under the Contested deletion section of the articles talk page that any suggestions that the article can be improved have not materialised. I believe this has not happened simply because the ability to improve this article is not possible due to its lack of noteworthiness.

Due to these reasons, i believe that this article should be deleted as an ill-attempted piece of sectarian propaganda, that when narrowed down contains nothing more than the quoted hadith and one scholars opinion of it. 58.106.235.75 (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I lack any knowledge whatsoever of islamic texts, so I will refrain from !voting. However, I would note that if this thing is prominent in Shi'ite sources and disregarded / not even mentioned in Sunnit sources, it is not ground for deletion under WP:NPOV (Jesus is, according to most Christians, the son of god, and it is not POV to discuss it at length, although other religions disagree).

The way the nomination is written leads me to think that nominator has an axe to grind against that branch of islam; it does not mean their points are invalid, though. Tigraan (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tigraan: Needing to resort to massive block-quoting of 1 shiite scholar does not count as "prominent in Shi'ite sources". Also your analogy of Christians and their view of Jesus isn't accurate with shiites and their views of a Sunni hadith (if that hadith is even authentic - which hasn't even been proven, or mentioned). What would be a more accurate analogy would be how Catholics would view an alleged Oriental Orthodox historical episode. But i respect your otherwise balanced approach.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article subject is very important as it deals with succession of Holy Prophet(ص). This is one of the defining events/reasons/theories behind the classical Shia-Sunni split. What I see from article is that it list at least 10 references which for its length is not bad. Yes, it has block-quotes but IMHO opinion it is better than POV/OR. Maximum what can be done is that article is tagged for expansion/rewrite having good lead section summarizing event-cause-effects but it should noway be deleted. And at last, to me the AFD request seems to highly POV push aiming at suppression of minority/alternate viewpoint.--121.244.54.32 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As i have shown in my arguments, there has been ample time and opportunity to expand the article with the relevant info that is needed to stave off the articles deletion; however, this has never been met. And in my defense: the only suppression that is being sought is that of content that is far below the standards of Wikipedia. My arguments are detailed and clear and in no way evade what is required of an AfD nomination.58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the content are just combination of primary sources. The subject is not notable enough to have material from secondary sources, if you can add something, it's OR or primary. succession of Umar or Uthman are far more notable and controversial :)Ladsgroup^overleg 12:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no personal view on the relative merits of the various schools of Islam, but the advocates of each have over many centuries attacked whatever supports the others, and I think this might possibly be the case here. I am not qualified to discuss the various sources on authenticity of particular hadith, but , as in all cases of religious controversy, I think we need as broad an approaches possible. Something is not un-notable because you disagree with it. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ DGG: First of all, when you want to add your opinion please show the common courtesy of adding your comment at the bottom of the page and especially not in between an editors comments - which i have now rectified. Wikipedia isn't an arena for prima donnas. Secondly, if you really read my reasons for deletion you will find that i have clearly not argued that it is un-notable because i "disagree with it."--58.106.235.75 (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Regardless of the truth of the matter, such issues are important to many millions of Muslims, and so there appears to be sufficient notoriety to make it notable. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Bearian: I don't see that as being strong reasoning. You made no defense of the fact that the article is only made up of primary sources and 1 shiites quote. That doesn't scream notability and proves that it isn't really that "important to many millions of Muslims." Just because we are told something is important by some random person, doesn't mean it actually is. I would have expected more sound reasoning from someone of your level of education.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, my knowledge of sharia and hadith is fairly shallow for a person of my education. I know a bit more about Palestinian law. An expert's opinion would be helpful here. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bearian: For someone who has studied in law you seem strangely unable to grasp the meaning of very clear arguments. This has nothing to do with "knowledge of sharia and hadith" (where did i ever tell you that!) and everything to do with wiki policy regarding notability.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please calm down a little? Even if you are not aware of it, you sound extremely aggressive.

And yes, the issue has something to do with knowledge of islamic texts. A layman such as myself will have no idea what and who is a reputable source, and what level of sourcing can be expected. A seemingly reasonably-made website or publication could be widely disregarded as junk theology by everyone in Egypt or Iran, and I would not know it. Tigraan (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tigraan: If responding to peoples comments by highlighting the real issue is considered "extremely aggressive" then people have really become too soft and sensitive. Again, you talk about "knowledge of islamic texts" when the real issue here is notability. Quoting the primary source under numerous scholars (to give the illusion of notability) and adding 1 shiites views on this primary source doesn't count as notable. This article should really be a sentence or paragraph in the Abu Bakr article in the section of his succession—not a lone article.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" I would have expected more sound reasoning from someone of your level of education", "Wikipedia isn't an arena for prima donnas", "For someone who has studied in law you seem strangely unable to grasp the meaning of very clear arguments" are all sentences that could be taken off your comments without damaging the arguments. Did you really need them?

Again, knowledge is required to assess notability. If the aforementioned "numerous scholars" are the most prominent shi'ite theologians, their voice makes the text they discuss notable, just as well as a scientific theory is notable if all major scientists in the field start to discuss it. On the other hand, those scholars could be a bunch of nobodies that operate on youtube and to whom none listens; then, WP:FRINGE would clearly apply if the topic at hand was scientific. Deciding whether it is notable needs to assess the sources, and assessing the sources needs some moderate knowledge of the topic, which I lack. Tigraan (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Tigraan: If you paid the slightest attention to my arguments it is quite clear the scholars i am referring to are Sunni. I don't know where you got the impression i was referring to shiites. To give you an analogy of my argument that many scholars simply quoting a primary source doesn't equate to the level of notability to warrant a separate wiki article: If i give you a handful of Protestant scholars that simply quote 1 paragraph from 1 of Martin Luther's books then i add 1 quote of a Catholic scholar who discusses that 1 Martin Luther quote, does that make that quote notable enough for me to then give it a name and create a wiki article for it? If so, then i will surely be a busy person for quite some time, seeing what innumerable articles i will create for wiki. Maybe i will find a shia hadith that is quoted several times by shia (say let's call it "hadith of the corruption of the Quran) then i will add 1 Sunni scholar who has talked extensively about it...and magic, we will have 1 more article for wiki.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The issue can be covered in other articles with more contextualizing. The large block quotes in this article are not the method of Wikipedia, and it looks unlikely that we could cover this topic with non-quoted text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section of the Abu Bakr article and this section of the Umar article more than amply cover for the succession issue (as its notability deserves). The event of succession may have some notability (though i don't believe it has the level to have its own article, just like we don't have articles for most contentious successions), however, the hadith does not have this requisite notability.--58.106.236.196 (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not encyclopedic. We don't have articles about the genealogy of Mary filled entirely with block quotes from the Protevangelium of James, roughly the equivalent of this page. Dawah is not appropriate on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2015 (
• ""Delete"" Too much reliance on block quotes needs better independent secondary sources possible to improve but not sufficient secondary independent sources

Unionville (talk)

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.