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 redirect to Family tree of Ali. ansh 666 05:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib

Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This reads very much like the user has created these facts. With some very iffy cites (Al-Majdi for example is a person, not a book). Slatersteven ( talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The mentioned matters have been tried to be retrieved/taken from sources ... Anyway, I edited the article to some extent to improve/modify it. Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Family tree of Ali (I would say to Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib but that already redirects to the family tree) - This should possibly be grouped with Jafar ibn Ali, which I think should also be so redirected. Both are sons of Umm ul-Banin and full brothers of Abbas ibn Ali and are most (only) notable for dying at the Battle of Karbala. Given the significance of their father, I'm tempted to !vote keep in-spite of NOTINHERITED. However, there really isn't much more known about these individuals. I do want to point out that some of the references are borderline ok, except that many are so old as to constitute primary sources. For instance, I wouldn't use Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani as a source if I could find alternatives. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Based on your view/suggestion, I obviated Abu al-Faraj..., and added another related reference to the article. Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 08:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

That would be great, although al-Faraj is still there. For the references/citations in the article, could you include a bit more information (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) - the name of the publisher and the date of the edition. Also, if your source is an arabic script based one (for instance, Persian), could you include the name of the title in Arabic as well, so that there is no confusion (in my opinion, if the source is in Arabic or Persian, the entire reference should be in Arabic or Persian, with transliterations/translations of the author and title). That way someone else can check your sources to confirm the information. I think the best case for keeping the article would be made if a little bit more detail were given. Right now, the article gives various forms of his name, it gives information about his parents and brother, and it says he died at Karbala. All of that is fairly basic information about him, and while it could be enough for an encyclopedia article, it isn't much to go on. But there are hints of more. For instance, he is mention in Ziyarat al-Nahiya al-Mogaddasa. The article could tell the reader that that is a prayer based on the battle of Karbala. It could also tell the reader what the prayer says about this subject (looking at http://www.duas.org/ziaratnahiya.htm, I couldn't figure out where he is mentioned, although maybe he is mentioned in a different or longer version). Also, the article currently says, "although there are other views about that, too." If there are differing accounts of his life and death, it would be nice to know what they are and where they come from (or at least the names of the some of the major historians/scholars/religious writers took note of the subject). If one account is accepted by a significant community (for instance, if predominately Shia believe X), then say that one account is more widely believed. As much as possible, cite 20th and 21st century sources. If you have to use the original histories, try to find recent publications of them, preferably with commentaries, so that the reader might be able to look them up in a source which gives context. Of your online sources, ISNA and maybe Ashoora are your best ones. You can use them to flesh out some of the details a bit more. Also, clarify the reference. For instance, the ISNA article was published 22 Azar 1391, which is, I think, 12 Dec 2012. Is the ashoora link a web version of Encyclopedia of Ashura (Muhaditthy, Jawad, The Encyclopaedia of Ashura, Qum, Maruf publications, Thirteenth edition, 2010.)? If so, then that is a great source. Provide the full citation (probably what I just gave) as well as the link (we call this, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). As it is, it looks like a webpage, which might not be a reliable source. The third link doesn't, I think, mention this subject and is provided to give context about the Ziyarat (which is fine, I'm just mentioning that for others reading).

As an aside about the suitability of the article for the encyclopedia, if the ashoora link is from the Encyclopedia of Ashura, this does not mean that the subject automatically passes WP:ANYBIO, but it might. If anyone knows anything more about the encyclopedia and can speak to it, that would be welcome. Vanity press published English translations are available on Amazon and on archive.org, but those don't seem to have the same contents as ashoora.ir, and the Persian version of the book may or may not be reputably published, I do not know. On the other hand, the ISNA source notes that he is listed as a martyr in various histories, including writings by Ibn Sa'd, Al-Tabari, Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. I'm not striking my !vote just yet, as I think the article should be improved if kept. But given a modern source exist which points to a murderers row of 8th and 9th century scholars who venerated the subject, I suspect he would be a fit subject for an article. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have tried to look at this a couple times without reaching much of a conclusion other than I am finding it difficult to sort out who is being written about in some cases. As a for instance, the article currently states that he was known historically as both Abdullah the Younger ("al-Asghar") and Abdullah the Elder ("al-Akbar") which is perplexing to me, particularly given that there is a more famous young Abdullah who died at Karbala, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment In order not to cause confusion (based on what @user 24.151.116.12 mentioned, about Asghar/Akbar), I removed "Ali Al-asghar" (which apparently seems to be less famous than Ali-Akbar). And at the moment the text is like that: "... in historical books as Abdullah al-Akbar (in Arabic: عبدالله الاکبر) with the Kunya (title) of Abu Mohammad" Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 07:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not sure I understand, does the source make this claim, if so it should not have been removed, if it does not that means it is OR. Which is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Slatersteven: You mentioned an important point; but, I edited/added sources, and the presented text (al-Akbar..., not Al-Asghar) is based on the presented sources which are available in the article --namely, both article/references just mention Al-Akbar (not al-Asghar), and it seems to be more true/probable based on my new research, too. Ali Ahwazi ( talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Is there any possibility that there has been some confusion with Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn who is described as having been "killed at the age of 18, 19, or 25 at the battle of Karbalā on the day of ʿĀšūrā (10 Moḥarram 61/10 October 680)"? 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 15:45, 17 April 2018 (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.