Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recommended precaution
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No consensus. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another of Striver's creations. It refers, obliquely, to a fine point of Islamic law. Should be put into Sharia. Zora 21:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you not do the same to this articles:
not delet for the same reason that the above should not be deleted. --Striver 00:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Not all Islamic denominations have exactly the same "Sharia". This article, along with many other fundamental Shi'a terms, should be kept separate.--Zereshk 03:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. For the same reason as Zereshk
--Ya Ali 11:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have the Shi'a contingent here saying to keep, in solidarity.
Regarding Striver's first point, re articles for various Arabic technical terms -- I presume that those articles are there because someone found them as technical terms in English books/articles/whatever, and felt that they should have an explanation. I gather that some editors feel very strongly that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and would argue that any one-sentence articles on Islamic technical terms should be moved into the Wiktionary. Or they might be better in the List of Arabic terms article, whatever it's called. But I don't think the matter is urgent because the titles of the articles are so obviously foreign-language-technical-terms. No one is going to be confused.
However, "Recommended precautions" is a completely opaque and misleading title. If I google on it, I get 2,430,000 hits. 99.99% of which have nothing to do with sharia. So, the title is completely wrong. Could the content be slotted somewhere else? Yup, it is just a stub and could be put into Sharia easily. So why have an article with a misleading title and no content? Zora 21:38, 20 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.