Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar

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. NJA (t/c) 11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith in praise of Umar

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

Also nominating Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an. Same concerns -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page is basically just a collection of quotes. They can go to Wikiquotes. The little non-quote content is a minute subset of Sunni view of Umar and Umar -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant content without the quotes which should be in wikiquote not here. Polargeo (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There is surely going to be both classical and modern commentary, especially on a hadith which appears to be central in the dispute between Shi'a and Sunni. Those qualified to find it should look. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a commentary would be good but not a quote farm. All of these articles were created in 2006 by User:Striver all of the quotes, in all three articles come from one book History of the Caliphs, wikipedia is being used to repeat this classic text, this is a big WP:NOT. The main article Sunni view of Umar has 103 of these quotes, see Sunni view of Umar#References. The two sub articles being considered for deletion have 32 Hadith in praise of Umar#References and 10 Hadith of Umar and the Qur'an#References. Any commentary can easily go into the main article and the quotes reduced down to a few examples in that article. So delete the sub articles and clean up the main one. Polargeo (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the other articles have already been deleted Hadith of Umar and prophecy by prod in 2007, and many more after the following deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad. It appears a couple of the articles unfortunately escaped this mass deletion. Polargeo (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be fun looking for quotes in the other 1000+ articles created by this user. Striver (talk · contribs · deleted · count · pages created) Polargeo (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this was expanded to include a commentary I would change my vote to keep. It could be a great look at a very important work. As it stands though it isn't an article, just a series of quotes with a few sentences to give a context. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Needs style editing. "Could be expanded but this is not yet done" is not a good reason to delete. That is ultra extreme Immediatism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments. I also think this article is a fairly useless content fork. Any expantion or commentary on this is far better in the more sensibly named Sunni view of Umar, which is also mostly a Hadith quote farm at present. The Hadith in praise of Umar and Hadith of Umar... articles which we are debating appear to exist merely because the creator couldn't fit all of his hadith quotes into his main article Sunni view of Umar. Commentary and encyclopedic content seem to have been a secondary consideration. Polargeo (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content forks, created in good faith, should, in my opinion, by default be merged and redirected. That somebody made the article is strong evidence that it is a reasonable search term. Changing to redirect to (I guess) to Sunni view of Umar. Keeping the quotes in the history is not a bad thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic stats to the article are nothing more than the background noise that you would expect for a long standing linked up article like this. No google news, scholar or book hits whatsoever but an odd amount of search hits which I suspect somehow originate from the wikipedia article (have a look through them). I think the titles of all of the articles are likely the article creator's own classifications. This editor created many many 'Hadith...' articles to fit these quotes into. Polargeo (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also not clear what the copyright status might be on the particular translation quoted. In fact if the link in the citations is correct (which I am not sure it is for every quote) this all appears to come from a 1995 translation ISBN 9781897940259 so extensive lifting of text is very likely to be a copright issue. Polargeo (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a quote farm and not an article. Any actual content makes sense at the parent article so there is no need for this one. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's quite probable that an article exists for this subject, as DGG correctly notes that it is a key element in the dispute between Shi'a and Sunni traditions. But this isn't that article, and a clean start (at a clearer title) would be best for such an important topic. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:23, 18 January 2010 (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.