Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad)


 * 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   delete. Big Dom  16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not clear how this meets notability guidelines. Lacks references to coverage in 3rd party sources. All references provided are to a primary source. I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:
 * RadioFan (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - All. Seems like a simple WP:NOTTVGUIDE case. These appear to be sermons broadcast by the Muslim Television Ahmadiyya International which in itself may be notable but I don't see that extending to a listing of every weeks' sermon as it were a tv show's episode list. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete - Keep all. I disagree with deleting these articles. Similar to any other broadcast on TV, I don't see why weekly sermons would be considered any different. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm seeing no indication that these articles might meet notability guidelines. It's those guidelines that will be used here to determine whether or not the article is deleted not the existence of similar articles (though like postdlf, I'm not finding similar articles, not that it matters for purposes of determining notability).--RadioFan (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Considering the context of the article I think that the articles are notable enough per notability guidelines. Considering each point:
 * Significant coverage - sources do address the subject directly in detail and no original sources have been used to extract the content (except title listings, otherwise list of tv episodes articles would be penalised).
 * Sources - are secondary and not primary per definition - please check the sources.
 * Reliable - Note that  Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability per Wiki guidelines.
 * Independent of the subject - does exclude works produced by those affiliated with the subject. Considering the context of the article, you wouldn't expect the sermon summaries to be published under non-Ahmadiyya media irrespective of how notable it is. However within the religious body, the summaries have been produced independently. Note that list of tv episodes do not fall under such restrictive categories (in this case a religious organization) other than companies responsible for broadcasting/profiting etc. Similarly material published by Muslim Television Ahmadiyya or by its site mta.tv would not be considered independent. Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only source given in the article is to alislam.org, which itself appears to be nothing more than an episode guide. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the first article is not very clear in citing sources, but for this List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2010), take for example the sermon of December 31 2010, you have 1 as the summary produced by alislam.org itself (which is independent to its source) and then you have one source by Tahrīk Jadīd Anjuman Ahmadiyya Pakistan 2 (evidently independent to the last) which is actually published on Al Fazl international newspaper (though here on alislam.org). Moreover, you have (though no source provided here) other sources such as 3 and4 providing summaries.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All of those appear to be simply re-posts of the same material. I think you are misunderstanding just what an reliable source is, and how they establish notability of a subject.  All we have here is a directory of sermons, with nothing to indicate just why information about what the topic of each sermon is of an encyclopedia nature.  Again, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is completely applicable here. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the first two are distinctively different. The 3rd and 4th are similar to the first one, but then again you get that a lot of that with tv episodes. I don't see why a list of programs that are sermons would be a directory and not a list of programs of tv series.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is not really analogous to a tv series. At this point I'm not rally sure what it is, as I've never seen anyone attempt to create a topic list of televised sermons.  Honestly it is just bizarre and does not really belong in an encyclopedia.  Find an appropriate article and list one of those websites in the "External Links" section.  That is about as far as this is going to go. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok lets get things straight, the reason why these articles should be deleted is simply because these are sermons?...because so far I haven't been able to digest any other valid reason. If you say that these articles are not analogous to tv series, please explain why not?...if you are referring to the directory argument, please explain why a list of sermons is a directory and a list of tv series is not? Moreover, why is it that tv series are encyclopedic and a series of sermons are not? Please note that an encyclopedia is not restricted to entertainment based articles. Suppose for arguments sake if there were no articles for tv series and someone was to create an article for a particular tv series.... would you use the same argument that never seen anyone attempt to create a topic list of televised tv series? The reason why it may seem bizarre to some people is obviously because of the reason its something new, which itself is never a valid argument for deletion.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can explain why a particular religious figure's individual sermons are notable...and show us a source that is something other than a regurgitated synopsis like you already have...then yes, the deletion reason pretty much is "because it is a sermon". This is not analogous to some random sitcom listing of episodes, no matter how much you may want it to be. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I see that you have just come back to what I originally started with stating the four bullet points of why these articles are notable..now you don't expect me to repeat myself, I refer you back to those points I've made. And Please note I am not trying to say that particular religious figure's sermons are notable as if other religious figure's aren't. Of course some articles aren't created because editors haven't shown any interest in them irrespective of how notable they may be.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Equally unfortunately, you seem to have a critical misunderstanding of what those 4 bullet points actually mean, because this subject matter in no way, shape or form, meets them. Non-reliable sources providing not a shred of critical commentary on the subject matter, but rather a simple copypasta, do not meet the project's notability guidelines.  Period. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all these articles are not are not designed for critical commentary - second of all all you've stated is that these sources are non-reliable and that I have a critical misunderstanding of the four bullet points leaving me with nothing fruitful to say. Please if you want me to reply you will have to discuss around the four bullet points I discussed.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. While we should be wary to urge deletion of subjects in non-western cultures when our ability to determine their notability may be the result of systemic bias, I can think of no comparable list for western religious groups or media: we do not maintain any lists for sermons of other religious figures that I can find, nor (in response to the comparison made above) do we maintain episode lists for non-fiction TV series, such as Meet the Press, 20/20, or (more on point) The 700 Club.  Certainly a well-sourced article just about the teachings of a notable religious figure is feasible (such as Theology of Pope Benedict XVI), but a summary list of individual, routine sermons such as this is a different thing.  None of the individual sermons have been shown to be notable, and so (to use some secular comparisons) we're left with the equivalent of listing every column a weekly columnist writes, listing every press conference a president gives, listing every review a critic writes, etc.  Which would be, in effect, an indiscriminate data dump, not a list of notable topics nor a reasonable split-off list of a parent article.  postdlf (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that just because there are no sermons given by other religious leaders is a valid point to delete this article as there is always a first to everything. However with respect to Pope's sermons, though I may be wrong, I could not find any sermon summaries which may possibly violate primary source requirement. Considering tv series such as 20/20, suppose if someone was to create a list of summaries, under what basis would you put it under AfD?...non-fiction? because that's the only difference I see between fiction and non-fiction tv series.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Just because other other sermons have not been added by other religious leaders really isn't a basis for deletion. At the same time, the only real difference I can see between a TV eposide and a sermon is that one is fictional while the other is not. However, that doesn't mean non-fictional material is not noteworthy and should be deleted. Khurramchaudhary (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2011) should probably be included here, yeah?
 * Delete Several places this could be merged. Should be in a subheading or something. not notable enough too Pass A Method   talk  12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not clear what you are trying to say.Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not seeing this as something that should be merged.--RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mirza Masroor Ahmad gives sermons every Friday" is really about all that needs to be said about it. We could have a Theology of Mirza Masroor Ahmad article if someone could locate independent sources about his teachings, but that's not the kind of thing we can appropriately slap together from these primary source sermons/sermon summaries.  postdlf (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Theology of Mirza Masroor Ahmad would be rarely any different to Ahmadiyya theology. This aside, why are these sources primary?Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, no sign of notability, no third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've explained this above under independent of the subject.Peaceworld111 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That explanation has bene pretty much rejected all-around. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, rejected but no-one has given a valid or fully supportive argument per wiki guidelines.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A single source is never enough for notability, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment a similar page was created after this discussion began so a new AFD has been created for it, contributors may wish to share their thoughts at Articles for deletion/List of Friday Sermons (Mirza Masroor Ahmad, 2011).--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction - it was actually created before.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see that many editors are just stating their opinions, for example its not notable or primary source without explaining why this is the case. If we are going to get anywhere please give an argument in support of you opinions.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - since there seems to only be primary source coverage. I find the argument that this should be kept because "you wouldn't expect the sermon summaries to be published under non-Ahmadiyya media irrespective of how notable it is" particularly false, considering that non-religious organizations and publications very frequently report on religious issues. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that's particularly different. Under which circumstances would a non-religious group begin reporting on a particular religious groups religious summaries. Note that religious issues argument is not valid in this case because it just doesn't fall into the issues criteria..and why are these sources primary?Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The most prominent example I can probably think of would probably be the New York Times publishing an article on a Pope's encyclical (or indeed sometimes publishing the encyclical itself). As to why the source is primary, it's because it says it's the official site of the organization that the subject is the head of.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition of primary is actually very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved - which evidently not the case. The definition of secondary is second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them which is obviously the case. (see WP:PRIMARY). The point is the source itself is secondary, irrespective of where it comes from. That just brings me to mind... are you trying to say that a source cannot be independent if it comes from inside a religious group (..or people)? ...say a source relating to articles concerning Christianity would have to come from non-Christians?...in my view that would potentially create serious problems. Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that at all. But yes, a leader of a movement is not considered to be independent from that movement's official website. We equally wouldn't be allowed to include the theology of a pastor if the only source was the website of his church, but if someone wrote about it in an actual independent publication (regardless of their denomination, usually) we very possibly could. Please read up on what makes a source independent enough to prove notability. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, will it be ok if the source wasn't from the official website?Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, depending on what it is (although the other valid arguments for deletion here would still stand). A source that simply copied the same stuff verbatim, for example, would not be acceptable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok but what if the sources are published by some other organization but also reproduced on the official website (as is the case here). Secondly I don't see any other valid arguments for deletion here. (mind the over-questioning).Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2011 (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.