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.  Sandstein  06:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Debate on the Hadith

Debate on the Hadith (  | 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 Wikipedia: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) reply

• 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) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• 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) reply
• Delete - as above. Blythwood ( talk) 05:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as above. Also, the author's citation style is atrocious.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• 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) reply

Found it. It was a template that specifically addresses the issue: Template:Debate - HyperGaruda ( talk) 12:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Do not Delete- Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia that are ignored or perhaps condoned by the above. I doubt if any of the above people have contributed a useful article to Wikipedia. I suppose there is nothing incorruptible; not even an open forum such as that of Wikipedia. It’s a shame. This has become tedious YdhaW ( talk) 21:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC). reply

@ YdhaW: Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be used as a publisher of your own research. Besides, your articles are just a few drops in the sea of deleted articles (take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam/archive for example), so please don't think that there is an agenda against you. There is only an agenda against articles that do not follow the rules of Wikipedia. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Initially FreeatlastChitchat deleted this article citing Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria No A10 which amounted to an abuse of the rule.. OMG do tell me how I did that, seeing that I am not an admin and do not have the tools to do so. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete doesnt look like it has many (or any) reliable 3rd party sources. cӨde1+6 ^TP 01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. There is no debate on the Hadith, and Quranic Muslims are such a small fringe of the Ummah that the article is more like a free promotion for them than an actual debate. If there were no hadith, people wouldn't know how to pray or when, for example. There is a real debate between scholars of Islam but this is not documented in the article, so either delete it or write it again to show the distinction between "authentic" and "the rest" of hadith's. This could be in the main article still. 92slim ( talk) 05:20, 16 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.