Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sermon of the roar of a camel

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 of the debate was Keep. Kotepho 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unable to go beyond a dicdef. Any information regarding it can only be added to the Ali article, it will never stand on its own. Most of the page is instead taken up with references. It violates WP:NOT "dicdef" and should be deleted. Dev920 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not true, obvious if one bothers to see the external links. The references in them self are notable, shows that this famous Shi'a hadith has various sources, except Nahj al-Balagha. --Striver 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a sermon, and the most noteworthy reason for it is "Shi'a believe it proves that Ali wanted to be Caliph." An article cannot go further than this without becoming POV. Therefore any information on it should be added to the Ali page and this article, therefore, should be deleted. Your work on it, however, is appreciated.Dev920 12:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not true, and ill prove it. --Striver 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have provided is not any information about the sermon itself, but about its authenticity. I am not doubting that the sermon was delivered, I don't have the expertise to know whether it was or not. What I am saying is that, stripped of its vast and myriad references, this article is nothing but a definition, and by its nature, can only ever remain so. This violates Wikipedia policy, and hence should be deleted. Dev920 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Striver, I appreciate your attempts to save this article, but what you have added ("the authenticity contravers") does not add anything to the content. It is paragraph after paragraph of other people saying the sermon was real. There is no information about the sermon itself, because there cannot be, because it cannot be anything more than a dicdef. THIS is why I have nominated it, not because I think it didn't happen (because again, I don't have the authority to know). Dev920 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, give me time, im working on it. And by the way, even if there was nothing more to say about it, the controversy in itself would make it notable. But aside from that, this is one of the most famous sermons, and a sermon notable in itself deserves a article. --Striver 13:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is commendable. But this controversy is a minor one. It is not notable to deserve its own article, particularly where the subject cannot take more than a stub's worth of material and is better off in Ali's entry.Dev920 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a comparision of a notable sermon, see Lord's Prayer. This is a Shi'a sermon, so its understandable that you are not familiar with it. --Striver 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord's prayer is not a sermon. It is a prayer. It is a fundamental part of the liturgy of the various Christian churches. A sermon is a talk on a religious topic. The article does not say that it is a shia prayer, it says that it is a sermon, one delivered by Ali. It does not say anything more than this, and the information you have newly added is a series of quotes by Islamic scholars saying the sermon is authentic. This doesn't matter! The only reason for this sermon to be mentioned is as a small note in Ali's entry, in helping to describe his struggle to succeed Muhammed. Therefore this article does not need to exist.Dev920 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ali is very notable and his widely written about speeches are consequently notable. Poorly written, poorly referenced, lots of redlinks etc... Not reasons to delete the article but reasons for cleanup and other tags. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - This could have a claim to notability, but I don't think it's been established yet. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Like most articles created by Striver this will require more work, but why shouldn't a controversial piece of theological literature make a good topic for an encyclopedia article? Talk about its creation, its author, its reception, the history of its transmission, its theological significance, the dispute over its authenticity... whatever. But of course the text itself shouldn't be presented and discussed in such detail, that's for wikisource. Lukas ^(T.|@) 15:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think, Lukas, that the sermon is as controversial as Striver is hoping to portray it. I think he has placed every conceivable source he could find on the page, possibly all from al-islam.org... Unfortunately, I can't tell, but the mass of red wikilinks suggests, perhaps, that these authors aren't as distinguished as could be...Dev920 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many people that care to write articles about old islamic scholars, except for the really, really, really notable ones. The article is listing like a thousand years old scholars that are not in the top brass, and they dont have articles doesn't mean they are non-notable, just that they aren't created. How many old moderately known african scholars do you think have their own articles here on en.wiki? --Striver 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I concede. Dev920 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable sermon by major religious figure. We have articles on Papal encyclicals, and this is similar. Having said that, this article is rubbish. -- GWO

We do not, however, have articles on every one of his Angelus' do we?Dev920 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should if they became major points of contention between Christian groups for hundreds of years. -- GWO

• Comment The best possible outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article. This one clearly needs improvement. I'm reserving judgement to see if it can be improved. Some good suggestions are above. More prose, less numbered list cruft please. GRBerry 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep and Cleanup the article still needs significant cleanup. GRBerry 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Important article about Shia. Khorshid 08:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The community has spoken. I'll go clean it up. Dev 12:21, 12 June 2006 (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.