Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wali mujbir

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 merge to Marriage in Islam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wali mujbir

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

While the topic is mentioned in a reliable source, it seems to ONLY be mentioned in that source - I checked several traditional manuals of Muslim law including Al-Muhalla, Nayl al-Awtar, Bulugh al-Maram and a few modern books taking historical surveys of sharia literature (but without Wiki articles) and I have not found this term at all, nor is there such an article on Arabic Wikipedia.
Now this isn't about forced marriage in the Muslim world - that obviously exists and is addressed in Forced marriage and Marriage in Islam, both of which already contain the single reliable source for this article. This specific topic on its own, though, fails WP:SIGCOV as one mention in one book, even a reliable one, isn't significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being mentioned in another encyclopedia is usually good grounds for notability, but if this cannot be verified elsewhere, perhaps it was improperly transliterated? Can an Arabic speaker confirm this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "wali mujbir" (Arabic: ولي مجبر) is found e.g. in "Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law and Politics" edited by Suad Joseph, Afsāna Naǧmābādī, page 394, published by Brill Academic Publisher in 2005 (Brill being THE high quality publisher in the field of Islamic studies!). For a person who is familiar with classical shari'a there can be no doubt, that "wali mujbir" is well known terminus technicus of Islamic law! The transliteration is totally correct. I see the request for deletion rather as an act of vandalism by someone, who doesn't like the fact, that forced marriage and the term for it is a substantial and integral part of traditional Islamic law. --Metron (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metron: As I clarified on your talk page after notifying you about this, I didn't mean it personally and hoped there were no hard feelings. You have absolutely no basis for surmising about my personal motivations - especially when I took extra time to clarify that the goal, whether I'm right or wrong, is to improve the site. I also don't think you quite understand Wikipedia:Vandalism because your accusation here is so out of line that it borders on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please stick to the topic at hand and avoid guessing about what your fellow Wikipedians might or might not be motivated by. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just googling around one will find plenty of evidence for the term wali mujbir (English and e.g. Bahasa Malaysia transliteration), wali mudjbir (French and e.g. Bahasa Indonesia transliteration), wali mudschbir (German transliteration) or (Arabic: ولي مجبر or with article الولى المجبر ) or the abstract Arabic term ولاية الاجبار (wilayat al-ijbar) . If someone is able to read Arabic one will also find the whole spectrum of discussion about the term and the problem. One will also be confronted with the widespread denial by Muslims and also by Westerners that there is coercion in Islamic marriage. In view of these facts is difficult to believe, that a person who did some research about it just didn't find other reliable sources. What other motives could there be to delete the article "wali mujbir"? --Metron (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way MezzoMezzo claims to speak Arabic on Level 4 – Full professional proficiency! --Metron (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Metron, I just ran another search on the term in Arabic and I am finding a lot of links on Wali when I search for wali mujbar (two different things of course), and the hits I'm getting for the actual term wali mujbar are discussion forums. There also isn't an article for this on Arabic Wikipedia and I speak neither German nor Malay.

That doesn't mean the term isn't out there - I just can't find it. Everybody can possibly be wrong, but I don't know why you're reacting this way and accusing a total stranger of rather negative things. And I did mention several sources of traditional Islamic law above and I didn't find it. What traditional Islamic law books did you find it in? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect. A Google Books search suggests that this term is probably notable, but notability like verifiability is a threshold test to inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. There's just not enough here for a standalone article and the very fact that the discussion, above, is happening suggests that readers aren't going to be coming here to search for that term. Once you strip out what's already covered, and covered better, in Forced marriage and Marriage in Islam, this is little more than a dictionary definition. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per WP:NAD. Its mention in an encyclopedia indicates there is some signifance to the term but it still does not meet the threshold for a stand alone article per WP:NOTABILITY .-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 16 April 2014 (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.