Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic-Persian literacy relation


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Arabic-Persian literacy relation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I apologize for “question mark at his own understanding of the subject”. Nannadeem (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Besides vote (which was expected in the same manner), dubious commentary. Nannadeem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem huh? What do you mean? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC):
 * @ this is also my question after reading your comments (merger or deletion? and why if it is personal reflection). Nannadeem (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem Deletion is written there bolded up for all to see, so yes my comment is deletion. As to the why part, well WP:OR is the place for you to go. We do not allow personal essays here, sorry. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes an optimist cannot convince to any pessimist. Nannadeem (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem can you please stop speaking this gibberish? you are making like zero sense here. Are you typing while high or something? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * merge I think this article can be merged in Modern Persian.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep so Merge and if this is unable to happen, nominate again and delete if needed. We should explore whether this can be kept for now and merged. SwisterTwister   talk  23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. Arashtitan  14:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

Move to draft space  so it can be cleaned up; i think there is usable content here.  DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also willing for this, drafting instead. SwisterTwister   talk  01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Good point. Eperoton (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.