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. Daniel 09:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mawla[edit]

Mawla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

origional research and dictionary definition Sefringle^Talk 06:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Unlike many other totally useless pages in the English Wiki, this article is actually important, since the meaning of the word is the official cause for the Sunni-Shia split in Islam. Therefor it is important to show the different meanings of the word. I didn't notice any original research in the article. Lizrael 12:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is nothing more than a definition. I guess I'm supposed to take your word for it that it is important. And it is origional research. Maybe you can show me what sources are in the article.--Sefringle^Talk 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Lizrael. Seems to be a pretty important word, as described in the article. Needs sources to back that up though. tdmg 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 06:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictionary definition. Oysterguitarist 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but cleanup is essential to meet standard WP style. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but it needs to explain in a better manner why this word and the differing interpretations of it are important in the history of Shia-Sunni relations. At the moment it isn't very clear. Jayran 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is kind of WP:OR. We cannot write about issues that are not significantly covered in secondary sources in real life. The whole page looks like created to explain a hadith which is not right use of wikipedia. --- A. L. M. 08:14, 12 July 2007 (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.