Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian Christian Stele (2nd nomination)


 * 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   not appropriate for Afd. I am closing this Afd so soon after it was relisted because it has become clear from the comments below that this is not actually appropriate for Afd, after all. The desired result of the original nominator will not be achieved in this forum. For one thing, there is a naming dispute that is intertwined with this discussion. Everybody agrees that the object of this discussion deserves an article. The main question seems to be: "What should we name it?" and then, "What titles should redirect to it?" The correct process to follow here is: 1) Decide where the article should be located. (This discussion is currently happening on the talk page at Talk:Nestorian_Stele.)  2) Once the naming dispute is resolved, if there are any redirects that editors feel violate policy, then they should be nominated for deletion at Redirects for discussion. Any arguments about original research, etc., can then be brought up there. Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian Christian Stele
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The last Afd for this article was closed as redirect to Nestorian Stele. After a discussion at Deletion review (see Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_1), it was decided to relist the article for another deletion debate. I am personally neutral on the topic, and completely disinterested. Aervanath (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no excuse for a second article. Whichever name is in use in English language academic circles is the one to use. If both names are genuinely in use then the one which is used less can be a redirect. If people disapprove of the name then they should go and argue with the academics. Names on Wikipedia have to reflect external usage. You can't change the name of something by changing its name in Wikipedia. I do not have any direct experience of this to say what the outcome should be. All I can say with certainty is that forking the article was a badly misguided approach to raising the issue and the fork has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Clearly there should be only one article. A clue to the issue comes from the article on Assyrian Church of the East which says "In the West it is often known as the Nestorian Church although the church itself considers the term pejorative". I suspect this is like calling a Moslem a Mohammedan: offensive. I would prefer to go with the inoffensive name, and redirect Nestorian Stele here. I looked at the first AfD discussion, and the conclusion seemed to be that because most English speakers refer to the tablet as Nestorian, that is the correct name. But can it be the correct name if it is an inaccurate and offensive designation? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some people involved in the previous stages of discussions about this article did not seem to understand the reason for the AFD, so please read the following carefully.


 * First and foremost, the issue being raised with this AFD is the complete lack of any sources for the term "Assyrian Christian" being applied to a well-known historical object, this stele. It is, therefore, a case of original research. Again, this AFD is about WP:RS and WP:OR violations, and is not a naming conflict (as many people, including the commenters above, seem to think it is). Whether "Nestorian Stele" or a more neutral term such as "Xi'an Stele" is more appropriate is a discussion to be had on the article talk page, not here. This discussion is over whether this title, "Assyrian Christian Stele", should exist at all on Wikipedia, even as a redirect. As I will explain, based on clear WP:RS and WP:OR violations, it should not.


 * On January 5th, Gubernatoria created an article called "Assyrian Christian Stele". He then transferred all the material from the article Nestorian Stele and made Nestorian Stele a re-direct (a cut-and-paste move). This was undone six hours later, and Assyrian Christian Stele was made a re-direct. Gubernatoria reverted the re-direct on Assyrian Christian Stele but left Nestorian Stele as it was, and for a day or so there were two articles carrying the exact same content. A merge was then proposed by another user on January 8th.


 * I requested a copy of the one source Gubernatoria used for these changes, Light from the East: A Symposium on the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches by Henry Hill through Interlibrary loan at my university. On January 25th the book came in. Looking through it, I was surprised to find that, while Hill does say that the Assyrian Church was incorrectly called Nestorian, he refers to the stele as the " Nestorian Tablet" (on page 108). Seeing that the once source cited for this new naming convention (which had started the whole move/merge situation in the first place) in fact did not use the term presented by Gubernatoria, I quickly closed the merge and made Assyrian Christian Stele a re-direct, following AFG and assuming that Gubernatoria had other sources which did use the term. However, later that day I began to wonder if that was the case. I went back to my university library and spent several hours looking through books, journals, and online material, and could not find a single source using the term "Assyrian Christian" with this stele. It became clear this was a case of original research - Gubernatoria attempting to "correct" the name of this stele, even when no professional historian or writer had done so, including Mr. Hill.


 * Most of us are here, I believe, because we feel Wikipedia can be a source for people to find reliable information. We work hard to add material, to confirm and source it, and to remove material which is incorrect and/or not sourced, especially when it may be questionable or controversial. This term, "Assyrian Christian", is not simply a historical term, but has modern-day geographic, ethnic, and religious connotations. This is possibly one of the reasons why no work examined, even those agreeing with Gubernatoria that "Nestorian" is an incorrect term, have ever used the term "Assyrian Christian" directly for this stele. Wikipedia is a great place to present naming conventions currently under debate by published writers, but it is not the place to create a new naming convention that has never been used anywhere, no matter how logical it may seem to you or to me. All material, especially historical, needs to have reliable sources, and cannot be based on one's own logic or personal desire to "correct" something. Requiring reliable sources and not allowing original research are two of the most important standards upholding the credibility of information on Wikipedia. This title, at this time, fails to meet both of these criteria. As such, it does not belong on Wikipedia, even as a redirect. If you want to keep this title, even as a redirect, then you need to address the complete lack of a single reliable source for this title and the resulting violation of WP:OR . Otebig (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I strongly agree with your contention that the article name has to match what the subject is called in real life, whether we like the name or not. However I would like to point out that redirects are allowed from incorrect titles (common spelling mistakes, common misconceptions, etc.) if the incorrect title is one which it might reasonably be expected for somebody to search on. I am not saying that this is the case here, only that it would be permissible for such a redirect to exist if it was warranted.
 * I note that some people find the term Nestorian offensive. It seems to me that they have a problem with the naming used in the wider world, and Wikipedia is a not a valid forum for that debate. It seems to me that many Greek readers might be offended by the name of the article called Elgin Marbles given the context in which they got that name, none the less that is the name they are known by and it is to the credit of any offended readers that they have not resorted to the sort of behaviour that has brought us here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clearly Gubernatoria acted incorrectly. That is irrelevant. I always thought the early Christians who proselytized in the East and created the stele were Nestorian, but have learned from this discussion that they were not. The name is a papist slur perpetuated by the heretic Edward Gibbon. The simplest solution as Otebig has indicated is to delete this article, and then rename the one on Nestorian Stele to Xi'an Stele, a more neutral title. I will formally start the move process now. I find some references to "Assyrian Christian Stele" on Google, but not many. Perhaps it should also have a redirect. The essay at WP:BIAS is relevant to this discussion and worth reading carefully. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I checked Google before the first AFD - all hits of "Assyrian Christian Stele" are from sites that copy Wikipedia content - a good example of the dangers of OR on Wikipedia. Otebig (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (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.