Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Ashura

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Ashura

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

A POV and OR essay. No Reliable sources support this. The "ashura" is a mourning, it is like a festival. The only timeline it has is of three days, every year, and different people do different things on these three days, therefore it is impossible to create an all inclusive article. the creator most likely confused Ashura with Battle of Karbala and then went on to create a POV essay with his own cherry picked OR. I am proposing deletion with the cavet that a merge with Second Fitna may also be an option (Ty HyperGaruda) . Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge to Timeline of the Second Fitna or Second Fitna respectively. According to the Ashura article, Ashura is a ten-day festival and definitely not this multiple month-spanning series of events in 60/61 AH. Since the Battle of Karbala is only 1 day, the Second Fitna seems like a better merge target. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man, I have edited my nomination to reflect merge into Second Fitna. Regrads FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ashura and Battle of Karbala was chain of events that started from 15 Rajab 60 AH. Yes, Ashura is one day that Husayn ibn Ali killed but this event has background in a few months ago. The article narrated chain of event as title "Timeline of Ashura". I think that Timeline of Muharram is better tittle of the article. There are several sources that wrote about events that happen before and after of Ashura, for example: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, Husayn ibn Ali and Ashura and events that happen before and after are WP:N. This article collect all this topics in one article. Saff V. (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saff V. (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these four sources are the ones you have, I should nominate this for a speedy deletion. 1, 2, 3, are ALL non reliable websites which cannot be used in wikipedia articles. And the fourth source (coincidentally sitting in my personal library) does not discuss any timeline for ashura, I have read that book cover to cover and have not seen any "Timeline for Ashura" mentioned in it. Perhaps you will be kind enough to enlighten me by linking/quoting the exact lines/page from the book where the timeline has been mentioned. I may have overlooked it. Otherwise I may think that you are misrepresenting sources. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Islam website is an electronic library that consist of many books. Books have writer and publisher. You can not say this site is non reliable website. When and where Wikipedia say the al-Islam website is non reliable website? Your problem is that search Timeline word in the source while The events of Ashura was a chain of events and you must read the source completely. Please read the text of the book instead of book cover. Search about the events that happened in Muharram 61 AH nit search about Timeline word.Saff V. (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then please link which books found in the al-islam library mention this. Name the books, their writers and publishers. Also "cover to cover" means that I read the entire book, not just the covers lol. English not your first language eh? don't worry, same here. Anyway, you admit now that the term "timeline of Ashura" is not mentioned in the book? good. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many of these books in other website such as this one. Another sources as well as have writer and publication name such as 2 and 3. The last book, also there is in Google book. Please search and evaluate the references carefully. If you have problem with title you can change it and redirect another title. Delete is not good way for solving the problem.Saff V. (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but unknown nobodys like Ramzan Ali and Ali Hussain Jalali who write self published books are not reliable sources. Therefore they should not be used in wikipedia articles. The third book is also self published by Lulu.com, and is therefore unreliable. So you see, you still have been unable to find any Reliable source to back your claim. To be frank the article is destined to be deleted, not a SINGLE source has been found yet that mentions "Timeline of Ashura". So my honest advice is that you stop using strawman tactics and use your energy somewhere else on wikipedia. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. is correct in saying that the al-islam.org website is an online library. It is always best to cite the book (including page numbers). That a book is in the al-islam.org website does not make the book a reliable source. If the book is only available on the al-islam.org website, that is fairly good evidence that it is an unreliable source. How reliable the transcription of books is on the al-islam.org website is hard to know - i.e. do they cherry pick, or censor out bits they do not like.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book show chain of events that happened in the Karbala.Saff V. (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V. the book does nothing of that sort. It mentions the conflict just as all other sources, no timeline appears to have been given. Can you give the exact page number where the timeline/chain is given? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat: I said: show chain of events that happened and did not say has chain word. Why you search chain or timeline in the source? If you have issues with title you can make redirect. Read Stand-alone list articles policy.Saff V. (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep; no point merging into another article because the citations are unreliable. This article is on a notable topic - the Karbala campaign, which has received significant coverage in many reliable sources (as well as many works of fiction, which not everybody realises are works of fiction). The article could be improved by using Western dates, and by having more and better sources. I would have given it a non-religious title - but that could be fixed by having a redirect to the current name, and amending the first line of the article to reflect two article names.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious problem with sourcing and POV. Not only are some sources unreliable, but some do not substantiate the facts claimed for them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Second Fitna Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Stand-alone list articles policy, a timeline is a graphical representation of a chronological sequence of events. The timeline of Ashura article listed sequence of events that happened before and after Ashura. @Sa.vakilian:, what is your idea? Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the title, but the topic seems to be one which is useful to someone, providing there are good quality secondary sources to refer to. If those don't really exist, I can't help thinking that this is then a form of WP:OR and the page should wait until someone writes a researched book including the topic to refer to. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically an awkward table of information found at Battle of Karbala and Day of Ashura.--Zoupan 07:48, 27 November 2015 (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.