This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HyperGaruda (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 13 January 2016 (→Debate on the Hadith: del). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:45, 13 January 2016 by HyperGaruda (talk | contribs) (→Debate on the Hadith: del)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)