Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaynu'l-Muqarrabín

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]