The result was delete all. The arguments for keeping are mostly weak, amounting to "it's notable", which is by itself not much of an argument. Although the mass nomination makes it difficult to defend individual articles, advocates for keeping could have tried to show that ample reliable sources can be provided for at least one of these hadiths. Advocates for deletion, on the other hand, employ WP:NOT and WP:NOR, which are strong policy arguments, and the level of sourcing in the articles (ranging from poor to nonexistent) serves as ample prima facie confirmation of the OR claim. Sandstein 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a classic case of what Wikipedia is not (i.e. a textbook). Contains a commentary (which appears to be OR since no secondary source is cited) on a hadith. → AA ( talk) — 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The following related articles should also be considered:
The result was delete all. The arguments for keeping are mostly weak, amounting to "it's notable", which is by itself not much of an argument. Although the mass nomination makes it difficult to defend individual articles, advocates for keeping could have tried to show that ample reliable sources can be provided for at least one of these hadiths. Advocates for deletion, on the other hand, employ WP:NOT and WP:NOR, which are strong policy arguments, and the level of sourcing in the articles (ranging from poor to nonexistent) serves as ample prima facie confirmation of the OR claim. Sandstein 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a classic case of what Wikipedia is not (i.e. a textbook). Contains a commentary (which appears to be OR since no secondary source is cited) on a hadith. → AA ( talk) — 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The following related articles should also be considered: