| Revision as of 12:45, 13 January 2016 editHyperGaruda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,117 edits →Debate on the Hadith: found it← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:16, 13 January 2016 edit undoYdhaW (talk | contribs)306 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Ah yes, I forgot about this one after some discussion on its talk page. Anyway, it violates ], ], and ]. I could've also sworn that I had once seen a guideline that disapproves of debate-style writing, but I cannot seem to find it now. - ] (]) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Ah yes, I forgot about this one after some discussion on its talk page. Anyway, it violates ], ], and ]. I could've also sworn that I had once seen a guideline that disapproves of debate-style writing, but I cannot seem to find it now. - ] (]) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::Found it. It was a template that specifically addresses the issue: ] - ] (]) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | ::Found it. It was a template that specifically addresses the issue: ] - ] (]) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| *''' Do not Delete'''- Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Misplaced Pages speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule. This attempt was foiled and the article was defended by other editors, like The5thForce, and restored. A new attempt has now emerged. It appears to be a coordinated effort of creating a non-genuine discussion between half a dozen people all in support of the articles re deletion .This is exactly what as was done to the other article titled ”Sex in reference to the Quran”. Obviously, these deletions are not personal but do clearly have the appearance of an agenda at work. Perhaps its purpose is to monopolise all articles on Islam at Misplaced Pages. They appear to be succeeding, given this level of persistence and dedication to delete articles that are not in-line with their agenda. There are so many other articles that are poorly written across Islamic pages of Misplaced Pages that are ignored or perhaps condoned by the above. I doubt if any of the above people have contributed a useful article to Misplaced Pages. I suppose there is nothing incorruptible; not even an open forum such as that of Misplaced Pages. It’s a shame. This has become tedious ] (]) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC). | |||
Revision as of 21:16, 13 January 2016
Debate on the Hadith
- Debate on the Hadith (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)
While well meaning, this article is one of the most elaborate examples of a synthesis of published material I've seen in nine years. Although there are ample sources, most of them are not directly relevant to the subject of a supposed "debate on hadith." Indeed, the only debate seems to be one that the author's creator has posited by adding in numerous sources that are unrelated to the overall point s/he is trying to make. Of those sources, many of them are primary, and links directly to polemicized translations of the Qur'an by one camp or the other; other sources are simply polemical articles written by adherents of the Qur'an Alone movement, a fringe movement in the Muslim world that doesn't have the weight or recognition to engage in any sort of debate with this manufactured term "traditional Muslims" that the article uses to refer to 99.99% of Muslims. The rest is simply a collection of opinion articles which, in and of themselves, might be RS on the topics they address...but they don't address this topic "debate on hadith" which the author seems to have collected third party sources on to create an article on a topic which isn't one of prominent debate between the two supposed sides. This is a clear example of a Misplaced Pages:No original research and WP:NOTESSAY violation. It might happen to be a good example of original research, but that still isn't allowed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I nominated this for speedy for being 100% OR and SYNTH but the tag was removed. Then I redirected it to Criticism of hadith and that too was reverted. I tried to talk about the revert but the guy who had reverted me said he had no idea what the topic was about and will not be able to participate in any debate. Seeing this, I did not edit the article again and waited for an uninvolved editor to AFD it or nuke it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The article doesn't reflect what RSs say about "Debate on the Hadith". It's an original essay sourced by primary sources, polemical literature and sundry web pages. Eperoton (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. Blythwood (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. Also, the author's citation style is atrocious. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Ah yes, I forgot about this one after some discussion on its talk page. Anyway, it violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTESSAY. I could've also sworn that I had once seen a guideline that disapproves of debate-style writing, but I cannot seem to find it now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Found it. It was a template that specifically addresses the issue: Template:Debate - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do not Delete- Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Misplaced Pages speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule. This attempt was foiled and the article was defended by other editors, like The5thForce, and restored. A new attempt has now emerged. It appears to be a coordinated effort of creating a non-genuine discussion between half a dozen people all in support of the articles re deletion .This is exactly what as was done to the other article titled ”Sex in reference to the Quran”. Obviously, these deletions are not personal but do clearly have the appearance of an agenda at work. Perhaps its purpose is to monopolise all articles on Islam at Misplaced Pages. They appear to be succeeding, given this level of persistence and dedication to delete articles that are not in-line with their agenda. There are so many other articles that are poorly written across Islamic pages of Misplaced Pages that are ignored or perhaps condoned by the above. I doubt if any of the above people have contributed a useful article to Misplaced Pages. I suppose there is nothing incorruptible; not even an open forum such as that of Misplaced Pages. It’s a shame. This has become tedious YdhaW (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC).