Talk:The Succession to Muhammad: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→top: class, importance |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Islam}}. Tag: |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Old AfD multi | date = 30 November 2014 | result = '''Keep''' | page = The Succession to Muhammad (book)}} |
{{Old AfD multi | date = 30 November 2014 | result = '''Keep''' | page = The Succession to Muhammad (book)}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
Does anyone think this an article? It is not even a stub. --[[User:R. la Rue|R. la Rue]] ([[User talk:R. la Rue|talk]]) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
Does anyone think this an article? It is not even a stub. --[[User:R. la Rue|R. la Rue]] ([[User talk:R. la Rue|talk]]) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 05:21, 10 February 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Does anyone think this an article? It is not even a stub. --R. la Rue (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
talk with GorgeCustersSabre
[edit]GorgeCustersSabre. You say I give excessive attention to one point. which is that? In my version there are three points from that author which I think are balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.125.41.217 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC) @GorgeCustersSabre:
- Dear friend 5.125.41.217, I do not believe your addition maintains a neutral point of view and I think it simply adds too much unnecessary information. I am open to being wrong on both views so perhaps we can wait until a third editor takes a stance. Hope this is fine. All good wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Review of the Middle East Librarians Association
[edit]Thanks for expanding the article, @AhmadLX. However, one of the cited reviews is not written by an expert. They are described as an "associate librarian" working at the University of Utah.[1] The lack of expertise makes it unreliable and it should not be cited next to experts. Wiqi(55) 04:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Wiqi55: Admittedly, the journal name did make me pause for a while but from "University of Utah" I assumed she was a professor or something, and didn't bother to check further. She does have a Masters degree in Arabic according to the LinkedIn profile at least, but no higher qualification. Thanks for bringing this up. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)