Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizq


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rizq

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article provides no references at all apart from several obscure self published books.Policy is clear on this "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WP:BURDEN Deconstructhis (talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No WP:RS, subject has sufficient coverage in Nuwaubianism. dougweller (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This page was created because the Nuwaubianism page was getting very large. It deals with a specific and easily-encapsulated aspect of the Nuwaubian belief system.  Because of this, I recommend keep but certainly a merge would be better than a delete. The references are to self-published books because this belief system is best-represented by the self-published books of the cult that has developed the belief system in question. Just as you would use Tolkien's works as the best source of information on Tolkien's "Middle Earth", you would refer to York's books as the best source of information on York's "Rizq" concept. -— (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if we accept that York is an authoritative source on Nuwaubianism, according to my interpretation of policy, it still doesn't follow that York can be the *only* source in support of the material in this article, which is currently the case. Tolkien articles contain sources other than Tolkien. In my opinion, considering this article is currently exclusively sourced from primary material, neutrality comes into play here as well as notability. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons given for the necessity of including this material in its own 'freestanding' article in the encyclopedia, is that the original Nuwaubianism article was already too large and that more room was required. I've taken note that three out of the four new independently referenced claims that have been dropped into this article over the past several hours, already appear in the original Nuwaubianism article, but are currently unreferenced in that context (see first and second paragraphs of the section titled "Cosmology: Illyuwn and Rizq"). The fourth claim and reference posted tonight in this article, stating that Rizq is the originating home planet of the Anunnaki, from whence they came in order to help create humans here on earth, does not appear to me to be included in the original Nuwaubianism 'mother' article, but both the claim and its accompanying supporting reference could be easily accommodated in the section titled "The races and their origins". In my personal opinion, improving the original article by adding the new references to the already existing material (and inserting your new claim with its appropriate reference) is a greater improvement to the encyclopedia than attempting to prop up a copiously detailed spin off article, which consists almost in its entirety of primary source material. One other thing that I find somewhat concerning about this situation, is that because we are relying almost exclusively on primary source material alone in this context, the relevant editors themselves are the ones that are determining what particular aspects of the available material concerning this belief system warrants both inclusion in, or exclusion from the article. Under normal circumstances (and according to policy), we as editors are instructed to rely on existing reliable secondary and tertiary sources to guide us in those interpretive calls, our own personal take on a subject is ideally irrelevant. How else can "neutrality" even be monitored, especially when we're dealing with source material as difficult to acquire as this is. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to translate that into English? -— (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll certainly give it a shot. In my opinion it is not desirable, nor do I think policy permits Wikipedia to provide every minute detail pertaining to a given belief system in an article, especially when those details are obtained only from a primary source and in particular, when a sufficient degree of detail is provided in an article that already exists. When such an article already exists, it is more appropriate to simply add reliable references to that one, rather than overwhelming the general reader with obscure details. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to decide on their own what constitutes the essential elements of a belief system, those guidelines are dictated by reliable secondary (and other) sources that the editor is supposed to be using to put the article together in the first place, otherwise, it likely constitutes "original research" WP:OR and almost certainly leads to a violation of the policies relating to WP:NPOV "non-neutrality".WP:CFORK and WP:PSTS contain some valuable information that is relevant here as well. There....that ought to do it. Aren't you glad you asked? :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added something to the talk page of the Nuwaubianism article a few moments ago that I think might be relevant to this discussion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Deconstructhis (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  StarM  03:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject doesn't seem notable in itself, if the original article is too long, perhaps they should simply cut down on some of the stuff. --Sloane (talk) 17:12, 2 March 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.