Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaynu'l-Muqarrabín

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. There's a lot of HESNOTABLE going on here, and not a lot of discussion of the reliabiilty of the sources. Thus I am closing this as no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynu'l-Muqarrabín

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:RELPEOPLE, WP:ANYBIO Serv181920 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was listed as one of the 19 Apostles of Baha'u'llah and was the author of the clarifying questions in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. He is covered in Smith's Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith on page 369, and A Basic Baha'i Chronology by Glenn Cameron and Wendi Momen. here is a summary of his appearance in the latter. The article is currently poorly written and referenced, but notability shouldn't be a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Baha'i figure. Glenn Cameron, Wendi Momen and Smith are all Baha'is and they mostly write for the Baha'is. How does the subject qualifies WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:RELPEOPLE?Serv181920 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are published secondary sources, independent of the subject (in this case, Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin). Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are Baha'i published sources, and I don't know how they are independent of the subject!Serv181920 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable? Yes. Reliable? Yes. Secondary? Yes. Reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Yes. Third party? No. Independent? Mostly yes, because the authors are writing about him for his notability within the Baha'i Faith and they have no personal interest in promoting or disparaging the subject (of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin). Neutral? They have a bias being Baha'is writing about a Baha'i figure, but they are writing in a dispassionate and factual way (other books about him I didn't list are more promotional). They are not the ideal source but WP:BIAS says they can be used. I think if you read the examples at WP:IS, it is focused on more clear examples of conflict of interest, such as an article written by someone's own company. There are many biographies on Wikipedia that need to be deleted and I usually vote for delete. I think as a general threshold all of the Apostles of Baha'u'llah and Hands of the Cause are an automatic pass on notability and can easily be improved with work. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources: "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject."

I wonder how someone would establish notability of Simeon of Jerusalem or Barnabas without using Christian sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ustad Muhammad-'Ali Salmani, the Barber of Baha'u'llah has more notability than the subject of this article!!Serv181920 (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as one of the main secretaries of Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of a world religion. Also the questions in "Questions and Answers" , a supplementary to Kitab-i-Aqdas the most holy book for Baha'is, is by him (for more information please see here). Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct me to the policy, in order to prove his notability you need to show "significant coverage in reliable sources".Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has reliable sources. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just cleaned up and reworked the article with more references, which appears to be the first major revision since it was made 10 years ago. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are Baha'i sources. I understand that a Baha'i historical figure will be cited from Baha'i sources, but there should be some support from other sources in order to prove his notability from "sources that are independent of the subject". If this subject has "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guidelines then it should remain.Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all Baha'i authors or Baha'i publishers, and even if they were, his notability can still be established by the breadth of significant coverage by many academic Baha'i authors. As mentioned above, "In significant world religious denominations with organized academies or recognized theological experts in religious doctrine and scholarship, the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." That is why there is an article on Barnabas. Also the subject here is Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin, and most of those authors are independent of him, except in a very narrow sense that they are of the same religion. Also here's a quote from you while trying to promote the notability of an apostate from the Baha'i Faith: "his mention in Baha'i books and magazines, his service to 'Abdu'l Baha as a secretary for 2 years [makes him notable]". Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - The new edits have improved the article but all sources are Baha'i. I suggest adding non-Baha'i sources. However, if no non-Baha'i sources are found then this person might not be notable enough and only relevant to internal Baha'i circles. Illuminator123 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, I see many non-Baha'i publishers and sources, e.g. Brill, Iranica, etc. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one neutral source, Margrit Warburg, and she only states a sentence about the subject. Iranica article is written by Moojan Momen, who is also a Baha'i but that source is acceptable.Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is also described by the British Library, where they have an original copy of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in his handwriting. [1] Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion, this seems to fail WP's Onursides (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ This account was created today. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient reliable, independent coverage. The WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments above are not convincing and nobody has demonstrated any significant coverage in independent sources. --IWI (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, this idea that any Baha'i source is non-independent is incorrect per WP:IS#Biased sources: "A source can be biased without compromising its independence. When a source strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent... What matters for independence is whether they stand to gain from it."

There is wide coverage of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin among Baha'i authors and publishers that are objectively reliable sources with bias, but they are not benefiting from writing about him. For example Peter Smith's A Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith decided to biography him with the same independence that Christians have writing about Barnabas. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Easily so, numerous published sources by various authors and maintained interest over time. Baha'i sources are the experts in this area plus Iranica mention has been used in other recent discussions to help decide notability. More sources include:

Seddigh, Foad (2016). "Significance of some sites mentioned in Memorials of the Faithful" (PDF). Irfan Colloquia. 17. Wilmette, IL: National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States: 305–23.
Christopher Buck (2004) [1995]. Anthony Lee (ed.). Symbol and Secret: Qur'an Commentary in Bahá'u'lláh's Kitáb-i Íqán. Studies in Bábí and Bahá’í Studies. Vol. 7 (reprint ed.). Kalimat Press. pp. 23–4. ISBN 978-0-933770-80-5. OCLC 1074158219.

which continue to highlight interest in his contributions to the religion. Smkolins (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This subject has not received significant coverage in non-Baha'i sources. Only Baha'is sources mentions some details about him, not sure if that is sufficient for a standalone article. Above two sources are also Baha'i sources.Serv181920 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Brill and Iranica further mentioned above are _not_ Baha'i sources. I offered the additional sources partly showing continued interest. Smkolins (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Brill has WP:TRIVIALMENTION Serv181920 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacEoin's Messiah of Shiraz (published by Brill) mentions him throughout and includes most of the details in the article. The book costs $300 but you can search keywords in Google books and get the sentence for context here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 03:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very well cited, notability seems to be shown through plenty of reliable sources including several independent ones. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 09:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "several independent ones" Like?Serv181920 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - due to transcription differences, I didn't notice this before, but E.G. Browne gave him a brief biography in his notes to A Traveller's Narrative [2]. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the above link, Brown states that the information he has about Zayn is "very scanty". The other item you cited about him from Brown also is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, a book of 360 pages only mentions one sentence about him. I could find only one sentence about him in MacEoin's "The Messiah of Shiraz" on Page 393. The book has 780 pages and it mentions Mulla Zayn only once, this is also WP:TRIVIALMENTION. This entire article is sourced from Baha'i sources (except may be 3-4 sentences).Serv181920 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted Browne deceptively, he says his information, "is, unfortunately, very scanty" because he didn't get to meet him in person. Browne dedicates several paragraphs to him because he was the main person behind the copying and distribution of early Baha'i manuscripts and he wanted to document more on him. He quoted several of Zaynu'l-Muqarrabin's codophons (transcription signatures) and analyzed them. Even before Browne's mention came up, the article was well cited. Browne, along with the British Library, mentions in several non-Baha'i sources, and fairly widespread coverage in independent Baha'i authors should satisfy notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those "several paragraphs" are about his MSS not about him. And your statement "MacEoin's Messiah of Shiraz (published by Brill) mentions him throughout and includes most of the details in the article." is an absolute lie.Serv181920 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My link above to Messiah of Shiraz no longer shows what I saw previously, and I can't make the search appear that way again. Now I can tell it was showing me results for several books but looking like it was showing me results for Messiah of Shiraz. Very odd software hiccup (or user error!). Anyway I crossed out my comment above, and the article still has notability. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:50, 5 February 2021 (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.