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. Opinion is divided between stubify and redirect. So I guess it's stubify at a minimum for now.  Sandstein  09:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmah[edit]

Hikmah (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)

"Hikmah is an Arabic word meaning wisdom" - I don't know if this falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY or if this is a potentially legitimate article topic, but this should obviously be WP:TNT per gross violation of WP:NOTWIKIQUOTE.

I googled the sources. The majority of them are literally dictionaries, and everything is ancient. Typically 400-600 years old. Ref#1 looks recent, but even that source is just quoting someone who died 400 years ago. The entire lead being nothing but inline external links to the Quran, and the entire page is effectively proselytizing ancient in-religion-POV. WP:TNT WP:TNT WP:TNT. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a legitimate Islamic philosophical concept as demonstrated by the included quote from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but the article is poor and I tagged it with ((Cv-unsure)) in 2015 because it seemed to be cut-and-pasted from some unacknowledged source. I think it should be reduced to a stub (there is one good reference) or changed into a redirect pointing to the wiktionary entry hikmah until someone can develop it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce to stub. Most of the citations are meaningless without edition information and probably not helpful for an encyclopedia article. gren グレン 21:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to its entry in Glossary of Islam. I cannot really see this developing beyond a dicdef. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reduce to Stub - An analysis of the concept within Arabic cultures is worth exploring, and all these quotes makes it clear that the subject has been studied extensively, so it CAN be expanded. That said, Wikipedia is not wikiquote, so cut all that out and let the article regrow with proper encyclopedic text, properly sourced of course. Fieari (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there's still nothing actually confirming there's the needed information for its own confirmed and established article, there's simply listed explanations about what the word means. SwisterTwister talk 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reduce to stub as the the current content consists overwhelmingly of primary sources that are very far from reflecting any sort of research on the topic, and these can still be transwikified to wikiquote. The topic however is notable, and there isn't a shortage of secondary sources, for example [1], [2], [3]. Uanfala (talk) 07:47, 18 September 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.