Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sargis Bahirâ


 * 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.  Daniel  10:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sargis Bahirâ

 * – (View AfD) (View log)
 * - include this redirect? → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, I'm going to regret this.) While I'm in favor of stub articles, I feel that this one cannot be developed beyond its current incarnation, and its very purpose is a thinly veiled coatrack article -- an attempt to discredit Mohammad and/or Muslims. The comment by the creator on the talk page reveals an intent to POV-push. No reliable sources are mentioned and, I warrant, none exist. (I plan to do some research on this subject this weekend, and may provide comments later.) A previous AFD of this article is here, which resulted in a decision of delete. -- Merope 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per G4. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The article in its current form is different from the previously deleted version, which focused more on original research claims about Islamic theology's connection to Assyrian Christianity. G4 does not, in my mind, apply. -- Merope 20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I assumed the previous article (which admitttedly I've not seen but presumably the closing admin can review) would've paraphrased the two sentences from the current article somewhere within it and if the decision was to delete the previous substantial version then, unless this one is different - it's only two sentences and not sourced - it should be a CSD G4. → AA (talk • contribs) — 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please, have a look here: EliasAlucard|Talk 23:100 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks. I reviewed the two refs cited at that link. The second ref cannot be a regarded as a reliable source. Nevertheless, I couldn't find any text to suggest Bahira was Muhammad's teacher. The word "teach" does not appear in the first ref and only refers to Muhammad's teachings in the second. If Bahira's notability is based on him being Muhammad's teacher, then those refs do not appear to support this. If it is because he met Muhammad, then again that is not a notable event on its own as we can't have an article on everyone who in their life meets a notable person. As others have suggested in this AfD, it would be better to incorporate this info in another appropriate article, provided it can be properly sourced. It can be expanded over time and once sufficient sources are available, it can be extracted into its own article at the appropriate time. → AA (talk • contribs) — 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources only mention this guy's name in passing as some monk who once interacted briefly with Muhammad. Christian apologetic websites like to read into this the possibility that he "taught" Muhammad, but otherwise, he's not notable. We don't need an article for every person named in every historical document about Muhammad's life. - Merzbow 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are reliable scholarly sources about this legend, although it is seldom treated as an actual possibility. See, for instance.  However, I'm not sure about the title of the article with Sergius as first name and Bahira as last name , as these seem to usually be separate names, possibly for the same (likely mythical) individual.  Also, no scholarly references to this guy seem to put the thingamajig over the terminal a.  There is some material here for an article, but given the dubious title and lack of relaible sources for its current form, as well as its apparent ownership by someone pushing a viewpoint, it might be judicious to delete it and let someone start a new article with a more appropriate title and well-referenced content at a later date.  Sci girl 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. That is precisely what I imagined was the case. I'd be happy to contribute the article about the character's use as a tool in polemics, after doing the appropriate research.  -- Merope 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Sci girl, I'm not pushing my viewpoint. This is what I've read about the guy. I've read it on several websites in the past. Also, there's no reason to delete this article and begin anew. If the name is wrong, we'll just redirect. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:21, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I think the article is biased, because this figure seems to be accepted among scholars as legendary. It does not cite the early sources for this account, although they are widely divergent. For instance, the article to which I linked mentions several of them: "Sergius was described by Lithgow as a 'diverted Thalmudist,' by Th. Herbert as an Italian, by Whetstones as a monk from Constantinople, and by Sandys as a Nestorian monk."  I feel that properly constructing an article about this figure would require extensive historical research, and that keeping the article as it is misrepresents a probably mythical individual as a historical one.  Sci girl 03:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There's no good reason to delete this article. Yes, as of now, it's not the best article Wikipedia has to offer. That's because the sources I provided were arrogantly removed, and on top of that, Muslims feel this article is insulting to Muhammad because the article claims he had a Christian teacher. Wikipedia is not about religious censorship, no matter what religion it is. If you give this article time and allow it to expand, it will become better and a lot more encyclopaedic. Nominating it for deletion this fast, is unfair. For example, have a look at this article: It was nominated for deletion at the very beginning. The same reasons were given, "no sources from academic scholars", "no credible sources", et cetera. With a few votes, it was kept. People started working on it. Look at the article now: Aslim Taslam. 19 references. Much better, don't you think? Believe me, if I knew more about this guy, I'd add whatever information and sources I'd be able to contribute with. But, as it is, I'm not an expert on this guy. I'm sure there are Wikipedians out there able to fix this article to the better, but you have to give it some time. If, let's say, three months from now, no one is able to find any useful and credible sources about this guy, nominate it for deletion again and I'm sure it'll be gone. But, I just created this article. Give it a chance to improve. Meanwhile, leave the sources that were removed (aina.org) because I'm sure they'd be useful to other Wikipedians seeking to improve this article. Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:13, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias continues to advance the argument that non-RS sources should be kept simply because they are better than nothing. This is not how Wikipedia operates. - Merzbow 01:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please tell me, what was the problem with the sources I provided? If you believe there is something wrong with aina.org as a credible source, please provide a source that actually refutes its claims. EliasAlucard|Talk 10:34, 15 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on you to provide reliable sources, not on me to refute unreliable ones. The "Assyrian News Agency" and a sculptress/amateur historian are not a reliable sources for an article on a 7th-century historical figure. - Merzbow 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 20:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, possibly as an upmerged redirect to a broader article such as Muhammad before Medina. Even if, as some above claim, he be nothing more than a figment of Christian myth used by Christian apologists, the subject meets the notability guidelines.  However, the need for reliable sources and neutral point of view may make an article about him difficult to write.  In it's current state, improving, upmerging, or making it the subject of an article improvement drive rather than sending it to AfD would seem to me to be better options. Caerwine Caer’s whines  21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rephrase, to make clear that this is one, moderately hostile tradition. Merging as Caerwine suggests would be acceptable; but a general article on Christian legends about Muhammad, down to his floating coffin, would be a better target. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this topic has potential, if only (as suggested above) as a section in a larger article. If there is no serious attempt to upgrade this article with scholarly references and content, it can be resubmitted for deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is a journal article objectively discussing the alleged meeting: . It is apparently a vehicle used by those critical of Islam, however that does not make non-notable. ~ Infrangible 01:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That "journal" is published by no academic institution I can find. The "Mar Aphram Institute" returns no Google hits, and the "Northbrook Institute for Research and Development" leads to a basically dead webpage. This individual is not notable unless discussed in detail by scholarly sources, which have not been provided. - Merzbow 01:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * keep - Journal of the American Oriental Society talks about him []. Other books do mention him [] - while I dont know much about this topic, I dont think he is "made up" by Christian extremist as some have suggested here. Chaldean 04:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comment That article essentially treats him as a legend; its title is in fact "A Syriac Bahira Legend." The story is attributed to "tradition" and its current form (as described in the article) to medieval Christian polemic.  Sci girl 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone above. It's understandably a touchy subject, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Add references, removed potential bias, and improve on non-bias, and you have a potentially Start-class article. Mouse is back 04:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * keep provided the references are inserted. Whether he actually lived is not relevant--if there is information on the legend, or if the f istoricity is discussed in sources, that's enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as per Caerwine, Septentrionalis. Edward321 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable references. The article is a POV. --- A. L. M. 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Make the article mention that this person is legendary, and tag it as needing input from a subject matter expert! I am concerned that removing the article would at the very least give the appearance of religious censorship. Capmango 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no content or proof of notability-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Though not entirely reliable, it is certainly not a POV artical, as no discernable bias or spin is employed. The artical should make it clear that much of what we know about Bhira is weakly substantiated; however, it is important that what little is known, regardless of strength of evidence, is brought to attention. If sources are speculative, then it should be made no secret. A subject is not disqualified if it lacks absolute credence - the very concept of it constitutes an artical of theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.182.56 (talk • contribs)


 * NOTE for closing admin: Please review the article in its current form (and if possible compare with one that was deleted before based on AfD consensus) to validate it meets criteria for WP:BIO (Generally, person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians.). Being a 7th century historical figure, there should be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability in his own right. → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:41, 20 June 2007 (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.