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 subject is not defined and its notability is not established. In fact, it's not clear what this article is about. It seems to be a personal essay, containing some material that could be merged into other articles, and some which is
WP:OR or simply unintelligible.
Eperoton (
talk)
05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Dubious nomination for page deletion: Most of the references of the page are online and meet the criteria for reliability
WP:RS as a secondary and tertiary source. Ibn Khaldun is
WP:BASIC, hence Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun’s translation from Arabic to Urdu by Allama Raghib Rahmani, Dehlvi (with more than 12 Editions), published by Nafees Academy, Karachi is a well known reference in the Muslim historiography citation among Islamic historian of the subcontinent. Thus, reproduction of Ibn Khaldun’s written material, from Urdu language translation to English, in no way constitutes a label of OR. Also the finding of deletion-nominator as personal essay appears to be strange in view of his own wording that "some material that could be merged into other articles"
Subject of the page is simply literacy relations between two languages, therefore observation of nominator that “subject is not defined and its notability is not established” creates a question mark at his own understanding of the subject.
Nannadeem (
talk)
14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
To demonstrate that the article is not
WP:OR, it should summarize RSs discussing the subject "Arabic-Persian literacy relation", rather than present an original synthesis of sources. You are correct about the question mark over my understanding of the subject. I have never seen the term "Arabic-Persian literacy relation" in RSs or elsewhere and don't know what it is supposed to mean.
Eperoton (
talk)
15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
(Note: see later comment about draftifying -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)) Delete. Hardly understandable
WP:SYNTHESIS. I think the article wants to tell: "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature", so in that way it is a
WP:CFORK of
Arabic literature. Linguistically speaking, the term "literacy" is used wrongly:
literacy is the ability to read and write - babies have zero literacy for example. The creator probably meant "literary" (=pertaining to literature). -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
19:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The article seems to use "literacy" in a restrictive sense of reading and writing, or perhaps "written literature". In any case, I agree about
WP:CFORK. The influence of Persian literature on Arabic literature should be discussed in
Arabic literature, and vice versa. A compendium of contributions made by ethnic Persians is not an encyclopedic topic.
Eperoton (
talk)
19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
In the presence of
Literacy and
Literature pages, I request to go through these articels first. Then "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature" with Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah Part-2 (Fasal number 35). If this is the case, blame goes to the first writer. However, I am learning about the hiden activities of my brain by editing Arabic-Persian literacy relation, through postmartem “deletion discussion”. It is my further learning that development of literacy to generate literature is in-encyclopedic.
Going to somewhat out of contest and recollecting my favorite subject, it is submitted that nothing is new and cannot be new, the synthesis of material from the matter already existed is called new. Even element Hydrogen is synthesis. Beyond synthesis is God. Synthesis/OR/Copy vio/Verbatum all are my credentials.
Nannadeem (
talk)
20:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Read the "article" and am still in the dark as to what exactly is being discussed. The writer seems to have penned his personal reflections on a topic which should be discussed in the "literature" article of both languages i.e in Persian literature and Arabic Literature.
FreeatlastChitchat (
talk)
12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The correlation between Persian and Arabic literature, particularly due to changes in Persian language after the Arabs conquest of Persia and changing the official language to Arabic for a few centuries, in addition Iranians' literary work in Arabic could be of significance. Nevertheless, this article requires considerable revision, otherwise should be merged.
Arashtitan14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Per article content and author's comment, this article is not just about literature, but specifically literacy, in the absence of cited RSs specifically discussing the topic of its "relation".
Eperoton (
talk)
16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Before creating this page I perceived it like pregnant woman (by going through various books and similar contents for online citation). Anyhow I am ready for its death or cure.
Nannadeem (
talk)
09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Would not mind draftifying either. I do admit that it is difficult to give a well-argued opinion, if the article is written so awkwardly. There may also be more clarity about possible merger destinations, once cleaned up. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
10:02, 8 February 2016 (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.
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 subject is not defined and its notability is not established. In fact, it's not clear what this article is about. It seems to be a personal essay, containing some material that could be merged into other articles, and some which is
WP:OR or simply unintelligible.
Eperoton (
talk)
05:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Dubious nomination for page deletion: Most of the references of the page are online and meet the criteria for reliability
WP:RS as a secondary and tertiary source. Ibn Khaldun is
WP:BASIC, hence Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun’s translation from Arabic to Urdu by Allama Raghib Rahmani, Dehlvi (with more than 12 Editions), published by Nafees Academy, Karachi is a well known reference in the Muslim historiography citation among Islamic historian of the subcontinent. Thus, reproduction of Ibn Khaldun’s written material, from Urdu language translation to English, in no way constitutes a label of OR. Also the finding of deletion-nominator as personal essay appears to be strange in view of his own wording that "some material that could be merged into other articles"
Subject of the page is simply literacy relations between two languages, therefore observation of nominator that “subject is not defined and its notability is not established” creates a question mark at his own understanding of the subject.
Nannadeem (
talk)
14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
To demonstrate that the article is not
WP:OR, it should summarize RSs discussing the subject "Arabic-Persian literacy relation", rather than present an original synthesis of sources. You are correct about the question mark over my understanding of the subject. I have never seen the term "Arabic-Persian literacy relation" in RSs or elsewhere and don't know what it is supposed to mean.
Eperoton (
talk)
15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
(Note: see later comment about draftifying -
HyperGaruda (
talk) 10:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)) Delete. Hardly understandable
WP:SYNTHESIS. I think the article wants to tell: "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature", so in that way it is a
WP:CFORK of
Arabic literature. Linguistically speaking, the term "literacy" is used wrongly:
literacy is the ability to read and write - babies have zero literacy for example. The creator probably meant "literary" (=pertaining to literature). -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
19:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The article seems to use "literacy" in a restrictive sense of reading and writing, or perhaps "written literature". In any case, I agree about
WP:CFORK. The influence of Persian literature on Arabic literature should be discussed in
Arabic literature, and vice versa. A compendium of contributions made by ethnic Persians is not an encyclopedic topic.
Eperoton (
talk)
19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
In the presence of
Literacy and
Literature pages, I request to go through these articels first. Then "Check out the contributions that the Persians made to Arabic literature" with Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah Part-2 (Fasal number 35). If this is the case, blame goes to the first writer. However, I am learning about the hiden activities of my brain by editing Arabic-Persian literacy relation, through postmartem “deletion discussion”. It is my further learning that development of literacy to generate literature is in-encyclopedic.
Going to somewhat out of contest and recollecting my favorite subject, it is submitted that nothing is new and cannot be new, the synthesis of material from the matter already existed is called new. Even element Hydrogen is synthesis. Beyond synthesis is God. Synthesis/OR/Copy vio/Verbatum all are my credentials.
Nannadeem (
talk)
20:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Read the "article" and am still in the dark as to what exactly is being discussed. The writer seems to have penned his personal reflections on a topic which should be discussed in the "literature" article of both languages i.e in Persian literature and Arabic Literature.
FreeatlastChitchat (
talk)
12:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The correlation between Persian and Arabic literature, particularly due to changes in Persian language after the Arabs conquest of Persia and changing the official language to Arabic for a few centuries, in addition Iranians' literary work in Arabic could be of significance. Nevertheless, this article requires considerable revision, otherwise should be merged.
Arashtitan14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Per article content and author's comment, this article is not just about literature, but specifically literacy, in the absence of cited RSs specifically discussing the topic of its "relation".
Eperoton (
talk)
16:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Before creating this page I perceived it like pregnant woman (by going through various books and similar contents for online citation). Anyhow I am ready for its death or cure.
Nannadeem (
talk)
09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Would not mind draftifying either. I do admit that it is difficult to give a well-argued opinion, if the article is written so awkwardly. There may also be more clarity about possible merger destinations, once cleaned up. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
10:02, 8 February 2016 (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.