Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yazdânism

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 keep. Issues with content should be discussed on the talk page -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yazdânism[edit]

[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)

violation to WP:NOR and OR by Mehrdad Izady Kaiduo (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please explain how this is OR? The article provides abundant sources, some scholarly, to demonstrate the notability of the theory. The creator of the article did not engage in OR, they wrote a properly-referenced article about a novel theory. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is about a WP:FRINGE theory, which I think is pretty clear when you read it. Plenty of editors have worked on this over the years but if the consensus is that it’s still unbalanced, it’s not difficult to make further edits to emphasise this, and perhaps fill out more detail about critical reception. But it’s certainly not OR. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it‘s violation to WP:NOR and also violation to WP:NPOV. This article is a POV and theory by Mehrdad Izady. In the one-sided sources in which the imaginary name "Yazdânism" occurs are not available.—Kaiduo (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok I see that this article has lots of sources that don’t actually make any reference to the theory of Yazdanism so the creator seems to be trying to give the impression of scholarly authority when the sources cited don’t support it. Nevertheless I think this topic is notable, not least because it is referred to on the website of the Kurdistan Regional Government, so it’s reasonable to think that users will search for this term. In addition there are sources for this theory here, here, here, here and here so I don’t think that just deleting it is the right answer. It should maybe go back to a stub, stripping out most of the current content but making use of the third party sources I’ve found. I’d be happy to work on that. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is pure POV. Not all Yazidis, Alevis and Kaka‘i (Ahl-e Haqq or Yarsan) identify themselves as ethnic Kurds. There are Yazidis who identify themselves as a distinct ethno-religious group. There are Alevis of Kurdish, Turkish and Zaza origin, and also Alevis who identify themselves as a distinct ethno-religious group. There are Kaka‘i who also speak Arabic as their mother language. The article is a term establishment and religious nationalism by some people to define a pan-Kurdish history with several religious groups belonging to one „Kurdish“ religion. There are also attempts by Kurdish nationalists to define a pan-Kurdish language with several dialects. This is Kurdification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiduo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well this is obviously a contentious area. The kurdification article looks like worse POV to me because it assembles unrelated events over many centuries and tries to work them into an alleged overall process. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, and much of the current content needs to be cut. However the theory of Yazdanism, albeit fringe, is notable and ought to be covered in the encyclopaedia. The fact that some people have strong views opposing the theory is not a reason to delete the article. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Wikipedia space is not an area to manipulate the historically and globally accepted subjects. This article is POV and OR. Yazidis, Alevis and Yarsans do not use the term „Yazdânism“ in history or in their religion.—Kaiduo (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs work, since the theory of Yazdanism which is a CULT OF ANGELS, is notable and ought to be covered in the encyclopaedia. I'm confidence to keep it, but currently content is weak. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic and suitable in WP. Question marks over the content but it is not at a WP:TNT stage. Britishfinance (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (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.