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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails GNG and in its present state it is nowhere near an article, more like a badly sourced stub. While specific works may be notable enough to be given separate articles, this fails such a test. Furthermore, in its present state the article is in no shape to be recoverable. Previous debates were voted keep with the rationale that "Article can be improved" however even though there has been almost a span of SEVEN YEARS during which the article could have been improved, there has been nill improvement, causing one to come to the conclusion that in reality it cannot be improved at all. I think it is time we deleted this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a well known and and notable sermon of Nahj al-Balagha. The notablity is supported by sources such as [1], (An article of 'Encyclopedia of Islam' in Persian) and [2]. Mhhossein (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep per mhossein. Grootwoord (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per first and second AfD on this article. In addition, according to Wilferd Madelung, there is a an Ali's letter to his Shia (followers), which covers more complete version of the theme of this sermon. (The Succession to Muhammad p. 270)--Seyyed(t-c) 06:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy/Draftify. It is a notable sermon in that there are indeed reliable sources, from the looks of GBooks. HOWEVER, the current state of the article is downright abominable and has been so for 7 years, as the nom noted. Someone should take care of the problems first in draft mode, have it reviewed by AfC and only after approval should it be re-added to mainspace. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:. I wonder who came up with this awful translation of "shiqshiqiyya" (Oh wait, it's Striver). For one, camels do not "roar", they "bray"; roaring is for lions. Secondly, the camel's "braying" is called shaqshaqa in Arabic, which is different from shiqshiqa. The shiqshiqa is a camel's "faucial bag", an anatomical structure in the camel's throat with which it does the braying, to put it simply. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as even the title is nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - well known and notable sermon. BabbaQ (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on previous consensus alone. The "nonsense" of a title has nothing to do with an article being kept or deleted. This is well known and has plenty of sources to support. Let me know when we're back for the 4th nomination as having a 3rd despite the previous consensus is "nonsense." --CNMall41 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 how about putting your editing where your opinion is. you say that there are plenty of sources mentioning this, why don't you put a couple of those WP:RS into the article? Just saying "this has plenty of sources" to support is quite easy, its been seven years and no one bothered to incorporate those "plenty" of Reliable sources into this abomination of an article, how about you doing it?. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat, don't be upset about my opinion. It is not a requirement that references be added to the article in order to support my contention. If you can show me the guideline that states we should delete an article since no one has improved it in seven years, I will gladly change my !vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 By mentioning the seven year period I was merely adding weight. The Primary argument still remains that no source in the current article can pass it through GNG, and as seven long years have passed since some voters claimed that reliable sources exist which can help it pass GNG, therefore maybe those sources do not even exist. I think that the basis of the article creation process is that you should have reliable sources which can be used to show that this subject warrants an article. So seven years have passed since it was claimed that reliable sources discuss this in depth, however, no such sources have been provided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:44, 16 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.