Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the two weighty things (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the two weighty things

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

The simple reason is that this fails GNG. I would like to put this in quotes for emphasis. There are ZERO reliable sources that discuss this IN DEPTH. Yes there may be a couple of passing mentions but no reliable sources exist which deal with this in depth. therefore it fails gng and should be removed. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{It will rain} 08:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (TL;DR - WP:NEXIST, but article needs heavy rewriting). I think you're going to run into the same problems as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sermon of the roar of a camel (3rd nomination): there are reliable sources —try googling for "hadith al-thaqalayn"— but nobody cares to add them to the article, thus we are still left with an unencyclopedic quote farm that is built only upon primary sources. - HyperGaruda (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes the WP:GNG, as explained in the first AFD. AFD is still not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @FreeatlastChitchat: I thought you are aware of Muslim Hadiths and their notability. This is a nonsense AfD! Please find the other way to solve the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most famous hadith for both Shia and Sunni. There are many sources that reference this. Look at Google books. The article needs improvement not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheehinfo (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One the of the most reputable Islamic Hadith on the interpretation of which Shia and Sunni dispute. The nomination seemed very odd to me. It shows that the nominator made zero effort to check whether the article is notable or not. See the sources supporting the notability ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and etc. Did the nominator relly searched for it?) Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as this seems acceptable and may need further familiar attention. Notifying 1st AfD nominator MezzoMezzo. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 19 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.