Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Bahá'ís


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Although there are more pro-keep !votes I'm not overly impressed with the depth of argument and the lack of emphasis on policy and guidelines. A lot seems to be WP:OR. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Free Bahá'ís

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page does not pass Notability. It is just a website with no third party sources. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Free bahais, which also has an AFD. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  06:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The Free Bahá'ís were a notable movement in the history of the Bahá'í Faith, being one of the denominations in that religion. This article may need some work, but summarily deleting it is not appropriate given that multiple sources are provided as reference in the articles about the movement's founders, Ruth White (Bahá'í author) and Hermann Zimmer.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The Baha'i Faith has no major denominations other than the one widely recognized. Splinter groups have never had more than 150 people each and have failed to be sustained. This user is referring to a few dissidents, not a denomination. Ruth White and Herman Zimmer didn't know each other personally and are not founders of a movement. They each wrote a book with similar arguments over 40 years apart in different languages. The term "free Baha'is" was coined recently by dissidents wanting to appropriate them and add legitimacy to themselves, with some irony. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  21:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the time of Ruth White, there have been Free Baha'i groups that have been active, particularly in Germany. This is not a recent coinage of a term.  The denial of the existence of Baha'i denominations stems from a religious precept in the Baha'I Faith and not from a sociological reality.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this article has no third party sources and several are clearly non-reliable. Agreed any splinter groups that formed were very small and never formed a sustained community and often fought with themselves and that the term has no real definition. Smkolins (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with A35821361. There has been a protracted effort on the part of some Baha'i elites to deny the existence of Baha'i denominations. The rationale behind this stance derives from some theological forecasts within Baha'i religios texts. Howeer, Wikipedia as a neutral observer should not parrot whatever baha;i religious texts say and rather deal with demographic realities. Since reliable sources see, to indicate that reality is different from these Baha'i forecasts, our articles should reflect that. 79.67.73.104 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but without extensive coverage by reliable third party sources, the standards for notability are not met. There are no reliable third party sources because the term "free Baha'is" is used by just a handful of people trying to amplify their image, or by opponents of the Baha'i Faith who try to amplify any and all perceived dissent. If there is anything remotely close to a denomination with sustained membership, then there wouldn't be a complete absence of sources on them. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  02:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Regards, A35821361 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm clear, Delete, no third party sources. Smkolins (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum are all third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Certain editors repeatedly delete large parts of this article, particularly parts of it that reference third party sources, and have ironically nominated the article for deletion because it lacks third party sources. Regards, A35821361 (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several sources used that I think have no standing as reliable sources. A google scholar search shows no relevant hits for "Free Baha'is", a more general search fines Zimmer's self-published text. There are some specialized materials that mention Zimmer or White but mostly in a context of a review of all such groups and how they are contradictory, marginal, and unself-sustaining. This doesn't meet notability requirements. This is one such attempt as have been made by a tiny minority - for a similar case see Articles for deletion/Unitarian Bahaism. There are already two articles about a tiny fraction of the Baha'i population. I see no substantiated reason this article should exist. A group of about two people might fit in one line in the general article on historical divisions. Smkolins (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the accusation that I was deleting sourced content, the "sources" were about Ruth White and Herman Zimmer, not the subject of the article, and those sources are not sources for the article being proposed. This Wikipedia article is based on a single website of dubious reliability. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  23:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC


 * As often as you have deleted bulks of text, you may be confused as to whose sources you have been deleting. The deleted sources I am referring to were articles written by Moojan Momen, Adib Taherzadeh, and Rúhíyyih Khanum, which are all third party sources referring to Free Bahá'ís. For example, view the version of 22:43, 2 June 2017.  Regards, A35821361 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevance of a 2017 era naming of a "group" named in the 1970s era in a single primary text claiming relationship to a 1920s era single claim is all OR. That's why we keep deleting sources that do not establish the reality of the group. There are no scholarly sources examining the reality of the "group" as such but rather a couple individuals who had no contemporaneous communication, then, or since, recognized in any scholarly source. There is no "group". Smkolins (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist talk&#124; contribs  11:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Free Bahá'ís for the quotes from sources. They indicate the term "Free Baha'is" was used to describe a few disconnected people that did not sustain a denomination of any significance. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  21:54, 14 June 2017 (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.