Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Mubahala

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mubahala[edit]

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

This is a major instance of original research that may not be readily apparent, unless the reader also takes note of the Mubahala article. That article is about the actual topic which is quite notable; this article is merely a direct copy paste of that hadith - which is a primary source - as well as an introductory section above that which is pure, unadulterated original research/personal reflection on the part of the article's creator.
There is no doubt that mubahala is a notable topic, but why is this individual hadith notable? A search on Google Books reveals lots of books mentioning mubahala and Eid al-Mubahila which are clearly notable, but the only mention I find of this hadith at all is a single source just mentioning that this hadith exists in a list of other hadiths which exist. I would suggest that this be merged into Mubahala, but that isn't possible because this article is entirely copy paste of a primary source and OR on the part of the creator; there's nothing that can be merged which isn't violating some policy or another. It should just be deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 8 May 2014 (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.