Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Bahaism


 * 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. No sources were yet brought up in the discussion that would meet Wikipedia's inclusion policies, but userfication or merging may be at editorial discretion (feel free to contact me). Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unitarian Bahaism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article contains no references that meet Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. All the sources are either self-published sources, blog postings , or forum postings. Other editors have spent hours (see talk page trying to find reliable sources and have been unsuccessful). It seems like this group has started a web-presence in the past couple months, and are using their own blogs and self-published pages to argue for inclusion in Wikipedia Jeff3000 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- My blog (http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/muhammad-ali/, writing against the revivial of Muhammad-Ali Unitarian Bahaism) is cited as a source in the article. I want to make it clear that I have no evidence that there is a group behind the UBA formed this year. So far as I know, it is just one person, and that person has a history of starting up groups and projects and moving on to the next one. I think it's very unlikely the group, if it exists, will ever be noteworthy. However there are quite a number of Bahais in the Unitarian Universalist church: that fact might be worth a note somewhere. Also Muhammad Ali's original pretentions and the way they were propagated in North America with the Universalists of his time, is historically notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sen Mcglinn (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Stillwaterising (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2010(UTC)
 * Delete - As I made clear on the talk page a number of attempts to seek secondary references in acceptable sources for related content have come up dry -Unitarian Bahais or newspaper mentions of same. Since essentially the article was rescued a number of times I spent hrs on this and reviewed over 300 websites looking for anything using the words unitarian and bahai (and permutations). Not a single hit provides a mention that depends on an appropriate source for this group (that is to say: not Youtube, not a blog, etc.) Almost all the websites that mention Bahai and unitarianism are places that are listing various religions like the Baha'i Faith and Unitarian Universalism and Sikhism and so on. A handful refer to unitarian universalists who became Baha'is or where someone investigated one and then the other or knew people of each religion. A very small number refer to the Sohran group already covered in the Divisions article (and ALL of them say the group disappeared before 1940.) One of those - and in my opinion the best ref of the 3 - is already cited in the article about the very thing. These articles do NOT mention this modern group. I vote delete. Sen's concerns that certain historical issues are notably from his understanding are already part of the Bahá'í divisions article though as always if more references are found that supplement the content in worthwhile ways it should be added. Smkolins (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - This article is about Unitarian Bahaism which is "a liberal interpretation of the Bahai religion." This article is NOT about the the Unitarian Bahai Association, and makes only a one mention of the fledgling organization. The article states that Unitarian Bahaism had its origins in the 1930's, which if verified would indicate that it is not a new movement. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Simply put, there are no third-party sources and as the article claims, the organization is new, so there are likely not going to be any soon. If third-party sources can establish the notability of the topic, then recreate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the article or merge it into Baha'i divisions as a new section -- There are third-party published sources establishing that Unitarian Bahaism is a historically existing religious tradition. These include a magazine published for three years in the 1930s by the grandson of the Bahai prophet Baha'u'llah, which also includes writings by various other authors as well, and is digitally reproduced at http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol8/bq.htm; and a scholarly and well researched book about the Bahai faith published by a Christian minister in the 1970s, digitally reproduced at http://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&lpg=PP1 (see this page for information about the historical "Unitarian" Bahai group: http://books.google.com/books?id=gc3_6HVvZzkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false).  As for the fact that there are Unitarian Bahais today, this is established by the existence of various websites and blogs, not all of which are written by Unitarian Bahais themselves.  One was written by an Episcopalian Christian: http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/03/warm-welcome-to-liberal-bahais.html; another was written by an American ex-Bahai who has become a Unitarian Universalist: http://circleh.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/unitarian-bahais/; and another was posted on Iranian.com by somebody of Iranian heritage: http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/jamileghrari/why-we-need-unitarian-bahai-faith .  There is also Sen McGlinn's blog article that has already been referenced, which is very critical of the Unitarian Bahais, both the ones in the 1930s and the ones today, but which confirms that they exist and that there is some kind of philosophical linkage between historical and current Unitarian Bahais.  Wikipedia policy on reliable sources states that a blog article by a third-party may be considered a reliable source in the following case: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  Sen McGlinn is a scholarly published author on matters of Bahai theology and history, and his blog is of a scholarly nature.  In his comment above, Sen McGlinn inaccurately states that the Unitarian Bahai Association may only be one person.  In fact, it is a registered nonprofit corporation in the State of Delaware and has a board of directors of five people.  I suppose this information is publicly available somewhere, as governments keep public records of the existence of corporate entities.  It is also a fact that board members of the Unitarian Bahai Association maintain and moderate an active online discussion forum with approximately 100 members: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitarian-bahai/.  There is also a Unitarian Bahai Facebook group with 30 members and a significant amount of activity by various people: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=347597207967 .  Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."  Therefore, Unitarian Bahai websites may be used as sources of information to prove that Unitarian Bahaism exists today, and that Unitarian Bahais regard their religious tradition as being linked with the historical Unitarian Bahai tradition of the 1930s that published third-party sources refer to or describe.  In conclusion, it seems to me that there is ample evidence that a historical Unitarian Bahaism existed and that it exists again today.  Whether or not there are enough reliable sources to justify having a separate article about Unitarian Bahaism at this time seems to me to be an open question.  I think probably yes, but if not, then at least a lot of the material from the Unitarian Bahaism article should be merged into the Baha'i divisions article as a new section within that article.  Either of those solutions seem reasonable to me.  The other option of deleting the article and not merging a substantial amount of its content into Baha'i divisions, as some editors seem to be advocating, seems very unreasonable to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiningdove (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments - I think there is some confusion here. The discussion (and sources be it self-published or otherwise) can refer to two groups. The group in the 1930s that followed Mirza Muhammad Ali, which no one states did not exist, and which is talked about in the Baha'i divisions page, where there reliable sources is basically extinct, and the newer phenomenon where this older belief has been restarted by a number of people with some web presence. The connection of this new phenomenon with the 1930s group has no reliable sources from secondary sources making that connection. The article as it stands is about the new phenomenan, and the editor's comments above relating to the new phenomena are all from self-published sources, and self-published sources cannot define notability for Wikipedia inclusion. If the article is going to be about the 1930s group, the best place for inclusion for a group that probably did not get bigger than 30 is best included in the Baha'i divisions page, as it currently is.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments re Baha'i divisions article. -- The problem with the Baha'i divisions article, in regard to historical Unitarian Bahaism, is that it is completely one sided against it. It references no sources that contradict the official narrative of the Haifa-based Baha'i Faith organization, even though there are such sources available which are credible, published, third-party sources.  All of the language in the Baha'i divisions article about Mirza Muhammad Ali and his Unitarian Bahaism movement is negative and one-sided.  It doesn't even reference the magazine that was published by his son, in which Mirza Muhammad Ali's own views and his defense against the allegations of Abdul-Baha were presented.  It doesn't mention the fact that the first Bahai to establish the Bahai faith in America, Ibrahim George Kheiralla, was himself a Unitarian Bahai who supported Mirza Muhammad Ali.  It doesn't mention the fact that there even was a Unitarian Bahai group in the United States in the 1930s, led by Shuaullah Behai, the grandson of the prophet Bahaullah, and that this group was a legally established group called the Society of Behaists, and that it had various American members.  An objective Wikipedia article would mention things like that.  So, if you want to redirect the Unitarian Bahaism article, then at least let's get some decent, neutral information about Unitarian Bahaism into the Baha'i divisions article.  Or, we could remove the references to modern Unitarian Bahais from the Unitarian Bahaism article and make it just an article about a historical religious movement founded by one of the sons of the prophet Bahaullah, which mostly died out -- and then, if any published third-party sources about the modern Unitarian Bahai movement appear at some point in the future, that information could be added back into the article.  Jeff3000, which of these two reasonable options do you think would be the better approach? Shiningdove (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As the neutral point of view policy notes, these other viewpoints should be in Wikipedia. The qualification here is that they need to be published by reliable sources, and the appropriate weight given as in current reliable sources.  So redirecting the page to Baha'i divisions and including any reliable sources about the 1930s group, in my mind, is the way to go. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we have the beginnings of a consensus here but it was hard to find with other structures and intermingling dates of things happening. Is there a way to bring this out more clearly so it's simple and visible? Or perhaps we're far enough along it's practically achieved consensus.Smkolins (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment: First, this Afd discussions is only for the purpose of deciding if the religious belief system known as Unitarian Bahaism is worth of having it's own article. Notability guidelines explicitly state that notability should not be used to determine the content of an article. The statements on modern Unitarian Bahaism are adequately sourced and not subject should not be used as bargaining chips on other issues.

Second, the Baha'i divisions article is horribly biased. I've only reviewed the lead so far, and I have to say that it is highly inappropriate. I've also found problems with verifiability and would suggest that it be nominated for POV check.

Third, I see many similarities in the Baha'i divisions compaired to the succession crisis that occurred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints (Mormonism) after the death of Joseph Smith. Brigham Young seized control of the group using criminal tactics. Others followed Joseph Smith, Jr. and formed Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints) (and other sects) that continue to this day.

The official history of the LDS was written by the winners (Young's followers) while other groups are/were labeled as apostates. I see strong similarities to the succession of Mormonism to what has happened in Baha'i.

Fourth, I have no idea what Jeff3000 means by "appropriate weight given as in current reliable sources." I'm aware of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT though. No undue weight is given to modern UB's as very little of the article deals with this topic. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: They certainly are not adequately sourced. The only credible info is of the earlier group which lapsed long ago. Since when did you become such an expert on the history of these groups that you just know the Divisions article is biased? I thought you wanted expert input? I see similarities with early Christianity especially among the Apostles. But you know what? I've never seen any scholarly comparison so all of it would be inappropriate in an article and not alittle suspect in these discussions. Appropriate weight means that outlandish theories require extraordinary proof and the body of research reflect the body of the article rather than the other way around. Very little deals with UB because, cough, there's very little to be said - especially any modern group. The old group lost court case after court case in various countries over a few years. This group old or new certainly has nothing to do with the Persecution of Bahá'ís or the Egyptian identification card controversy or the world wide community (still inadequately documented) which is growing among the fastest in the world since world wide statistics were gathered (which is to say over the last 35 years) or the Category:Bahá'í educational institutions serving people. And of the individuals that started their own groups I'm pretty sure the Remey split was more substantial. I'm pretty certain it included more people in more countries even if it was eventually almost totally extinct.Smkolins (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * POV check needed for Baha'i divisions article - Yes, the Baha'i divisions article is biased and I agree with Stillwaterising that it should be nominated for POV check. In fact, much of that article should probably be rewritten, as it reads like an official Baha'i Faith propaganda piece right now. How can the process be started to nominate it for POV check?


 * ✅ - I knew how to do it but was holding off until consensus was reached. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment:What consensus was this??

Comment: Perhaps a parallel would help on the question of deletion. '' A small but significant Unitarian Bahai movement arose in the United States in the 1930s, but unfortunately it did not last. We seek to revive this school of thought today…'' it says on the the avowed website of the group about 3/4ths down the page. So there is no link. Between numbering at most 100 according to their own numbers (though no independent examination), and no chain linked or claimed with the original group, it's far less notable than say the The Mandaeans, followers of John the Baptist, who number in the tens of thousands and have an established history linking the modern community to the past.Smkolins (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Sources are extremely poor. Those that aren't to the website are supporting OR. McGlinn's observations are salient here - and Shiningdove's statistics about its Facebook membership don't contradict the point - that this is likely just a flash in the pan. What is WP coming to if we have to spend this kind of time deciding that a Facebook group of thirty doesn't cross notability? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow Up Forgot to mention specifically: WP:NN.


 * Since I voted, somebody's been trying to add refs, and sorry to say, they're pretty cruddy.


 * Not only are they appallingly lacking complete citation, every single reference in the "Modern" section is to either a blog or a website that wouldn't pass muster, even as SELFPUB, because the point here is to to establish, by independent means, that this is an acutal organization. Sen McGlinn's point above is very salient.


 * The "Historical" section's references - those that aren't pointing to the same blog - don't draw a clear line at all between Ali and Unitarian Universalism. The only thing the genuine sources seem to address clearly is the split between Ali and Abdul-Baha, and a single, third-hand account compiled by Browne (Does that make it a fourth-hand account?) calling Ali "unitaritian".


 * Lastly, nothing identifies a clear "heredity" of these periods beyond, perhaps, sharing the term "unitarian". Somebody's getting snookered. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: KEEP THIS PAGE

McGlinn's blog article on this subject contains various polemic materials, including an image of Alice in Wonderland's Mad Hatter clearly designed to insult UBA reformism. McGlinn was ex-communicated by the haifan-bahai organization, and he is a very complex individual.

Stetson was, previous to founding UBA, viciously attacked by a prominent haifan-bahai "scholar" named Momen who is presumably under the influence of the haifan-bahai world center. As such, UBA joins a continuum of bahai nonconformism, criticism and dissent that has been extensively documented since the 1980s in both official haifan-bahai sources (published attacks by haifan bahai administration on critics and dissidents) and other published sources, including books and article by critics such as Cole, Garlington and others.

UBA is probably currently the single most significant reform movement amongst the various non-haifan bahai organizations, and the attempt to delete this page could be considered a significant example of persecution of critics of the haifan-bahai organization, and worthy of attention by those publishing material critical of censorship by haifan-bahais.

The haifan-bahais have attempted to censor an entire nonconformist bahai publishing business, Kalimat Press, that was the source of many controversial articles and books that were popular amongst people critical of the religions' many faults.

Please do not underestimate the extent to which people that have been involved in the haifan-bahai organization have deeply and/or subconsciously internalized biases against nonconformists, dissidents and critics.

The haifan-bahais are obsessed by conversion, so the charges about "missionary" motives of critics (Miller) are ironic.

Bias disclosure: I'm an ex-bahai that was coerced into joining the religion as a teenager in the early 1970s on the periphery of the "mass teaching" phenomena in south carolina. I submitted a resignation request to the haifan-bahai organization about five or six years ago. I knew people involved in the LA Study Group, Dialogue Magazine, and was an active participant in the original "Talisman" email group, and have been "investigated" by haifan-bahai authorities several times for being a critic and nonconformist. since leaving I no longer believe that the bahai/islamic "manifestation" concept has validity beyond a very culturally limted context, rather transcendence is directly available to all humanity as a result of biological evolution (not "revelation"). I currently am re-embracing the dharma traditions, particularly buddhism, and am interested in integral theory (Aurobindo, Rudolph Steiner, Jean Gebser, Ken Wilber) and consciousness studies.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)

"What is WP coming to if we have to spend this kind of time deciding that a Facebook group of thirty doesn't cross notability? MARussellPESE (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)"

Well, you and other haifan bahais, if successful at censoring the material, will certainly contribute to minimizing competition from UBA.

If the haifan-bahais had simply let the material stand, and allowed it to evolve and be discussed in a healthy manner, the purpose of providing an open knowledge commons (democracy) in which the merits and problems of a small bahai reform movement could be "independently investigated" could have been properly served.

the haifan-bahais might even have learned something from the people marginalized by their own dysfunctional leadership, again, as responsible, principled citizens in a democratic republic.

If the UBA Wiki material is deleted, then the UBA will most likely attempt to publish an article about this as the latest example of censorship by haifan bahais. And then, I guess enough "published" material would exist for UBA to be considered "notable"?

Is the letter from Dann May (Oklahoma City University) requesting that the (haifan) US National Baha'i Center stop annoying him and his wife relevant?

If so, then please note that only a couple of years after May was cited in a local newspaper article about religious tolerance

http://www.bahaindex.com/en/news/1-general-news/3258-school-in-bonny-doon-emphasizes-religious-tolerance

Professor May complained about the intolerance that exists with in the haifan-bahai organization!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Baha'i_Faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)

"we already view ourselves as no longer members of the Baha’i community and we regularly attend Unitarian and Buddhist activities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.126.161 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment - nothing in your argument has anything to do with Wikipedia policies, such as WP:N. If the article is deleted, it will be upon those grounds. Lady  of  Shalott  16:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The only guideline that's applicable here is General Notability Guidelines (GNG|GNG). Nothing else really matters. WP:UNDUE is a guideline regarding content, not notability. Importance, or significance is irrelevant. The number of followers is irrelevant. Theological matters are irrelevant.

Here's justification on why this article meets the GNG guidelines. Browne's 1918 translation of Baha'u'llah's writings establish that his followers both called themselves "Unitarians" and held the same basic beliefs. This work is published and verifiable however it may be considered a primary source which may not make it suitable for establishing notability.

The 2005 Garlington "The Baha'i Faith in America" also can be considered a reliable source suitable for establishing notability. It is published by Greenwood Publishing Group which can be presumed to be a reliable publisher and certainly not "self-published". This secondary source can be used to confirm the existence of first American Bahai organization and establish notability.

This group later "switched sides" and followed Unitarian beliefs. That is confirmed by contents of quarterly magazine called the "Behai Quarterly". This magazine was published from 1934 to 1937 and has been scanned and is available online for free public viewing. This source is published by Shua Ulla Behai and contains the writings of persons who are considered experts in their fields. It establishes that the early American group help Unitarian Behai believes. It is considered to be a reliable secondary source under the special provisions of WP:SPS.

Next is "Bahá'í: Studies in Contemporary Religion" by Warburg. It's published by Signature Books, a reliable publisher, and is suitable secondary source which can be used for establishing notability. This source also documents the early American movement.

Finally, there is an assortment of websites and self-publish essays which, taken as a whole, can help establish notability.

I'm angered the nominator, Jeff3000, did not agree to wait until reliable sources were found. He instead pushed forward with deletion hours after creation and has caused undue stress and divisioin in the community. Jeff3000 has a declared conflict of interest in the topic of Baha'ism and should not be making controversial edits, which includes Afd nominations. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are couple things to note regarding the above comments. First is the the clear demarcation between the old 1930s group, which clearly existed and has a number of secondary sources noting it.  That is not the problem.  The problem is the notability of the apparent-new phenomomen, which has no third-party reliable sources to make it notable, and an extensive portion of the article, including the lead is based on self-published sources from this new group.  Any connections between this new group and the old group are also based on self-published sources and would be considered original research.  The above editor's comments that "an assortment of websites and self-publish essays which, taken as a whole, can help establish notability" does not abide by Wikipedia's policies.  I'm willing to retract this AFD if the articles subject is the old 1930s group.  Finally, Stillwaterising comments regarding my COI are incorrect, and my contributions back that up.  I deal with both anti- and pro-Baha'i content alike, and I use reliable, third-party reliable sources relating to all my work.  I've tried to assume AGF on his part, but he has no notion of that towards me.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - given the non-nominator delete votes above, simply withdrawing the nomination is not an option at this point (though the nominator is of course free to change his mind and argue for keeping). Lady  of  Shalott  22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply: Jeff3000, you have made over 41,000 edits over the last 5 years. I can not reasonably believe that you have not read the WP:GNG. From the Third Paragraph of General Notability Guidelines: "Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." This notability discussion is to determine the suitability of the topic of Unitarian Bahaism for its own article. It does NOT directly limit the content of articles. Period. So no, you can not use the arguement of NN of modern UB because it's not supported by guidelines. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Stillwaterising, what I'm referring to is something unrelated to this AFD, but the comment that the if the notability of the 1930s group is established, that by default makes a connection between the new group and the old group, and that is not true, unless there is a reliable source to back that up. And without a reliable source making the connection WP:SELFPUB does not apply.  An example, is the Flat Earth article, where the section on modern flat-earthers uses third-party sources such as the BBC to note their existence, and actually doesn't use any of the self-published sources from the modern believers.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why I vote to keep the page -- There are two aspects of Unitarian Bahaism: (1) A historical religious tradition and community, the existence of which is proved by plenty of reliable sources, and the notability of which is augmented by the fact that its founder was one of the sons of the Bahai prophet Bahaullah himself, that most of Bahaullah's wives and children supported Unitarian Bahaism, and that the founder of the Bahai faith in America was a Unitarian Bahai. (2) A nascent religious movement that, according to various websites and blogs associated with it and/or its supporters, seeks to revive some of the beliefs of historical Unitarian Bahaism, but which does not have printed sources about it yet because it is so new. Based on the notability and reliable sources for historical Unitarian Bahaism alone, this article should be kept. The debate really should only be about whether to remove some of the material about the modern Unitarian Bahai movement, due to the fact that it has not yet been described outside the internet. Even on this issue, however, the following principle applies: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). This means that the section on Modern Unitarian Bahais should not be entirely removed, and perhaps could even be kept as is -- especially if the historical portion of the article were to be expanded to constitute a larger majority of the content of the article. Therefore, it seems clear that there is no reasonable basis to argue for deleting this article. It is also worth noting that two other small Bahai sects or heresies already have their own articles: Orthodox Baha'i Faith and Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Unitarian Bahaism is at least of comparable importance. In fact, I would argue it's even more important, since many of the supporters of Unitarian Bahaism were close family members of the Bahai prophet Bahaullah, and its founder was his son and was given the position of second rank in the leadership of the religion in Bahaullah's will, after Abdul-Baha (even majoritarian Bahais agree with this well-established fact). For these reasons, this particular schismatic/heretical tradition is highly relevant to the study of Bahai history and always will be, even if, hypothetically, it were someday to cease to be an extant tradition. One of the descendants of the prophet Bahaullah was interviewed in a 2006 Israeli film documentary about the Bahai faith, and she is a Unitarian Bahai, supporting her grandfather Mirza Muhammad Ali, the founder of Unitarian Bahaism, which shows that Unitarian Bahaism never completely died out. And during the past year, interest in and support for the Unitarian Bahai tradition has been markedly increasing as demonstrated by numerous online sources, which makes it even more noteworthy than it already would be if it were only a historical phenomenon. Shiningdove (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note, this editor has already voted above. Also, in regards to the newer group, the lead and a whole section of the page is based on self-published sources from the new group.  Also the connections between the new group and the old group are also based on self-published sources and the connection would be considered original research. If a connection between the new group and the old group could be made by reliable third-party sources, then an argument could be made in regards to WP:SELFPUB, but not with the current sources.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment and question for Jeff3000 -- Maybe the lead of the article needs some work. Printed third-party sources could easily be added to the lead to back up some of the statements therein.  As for the rest of the article, perhaps the historical section should be expanded to give it more weight relative to the modern section.  A lot more details about historical Unitarian Bahaism could be added and there are plenty of good references available for that part.  Since we are discussing the issue of whether the entire article should be deleted, would you change your position from deletion to keeping the article if those two things I just mentioned were done to it? Shiningdove (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - At this point, I think what is best is that the sources used in the historical section should be used to make the section in the Baha'i divisions better, and the page should be a redirect to that section. As I noted above with the example of how the Flat earth article deals with new groups that seem to be continuation of older groups, reliable sources need to be available making that connection.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I also vote to keep the page Students of religions will undoubtedly stumble on Unitarian Bahaism, and I believe objective information should be available about this Baha'i religion. I vote «keep» while understanding that it is preferable «to find a mutually agreeable position.» (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion ).--Martin Lavallée 17:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin lavallee (talk • contribs)
 * Comment The editor above doesn't address the issues that there are no reliable secondary sources noting the notability. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - As Stillwaterising notes, the only guideline that's applicable here is General Notability Guidelines (GNG|GNG). And a link is in fact claimed with the original group. Indeed, an actual connection between the revivalist movement and the original movement can be made by Nigar Bahai Amsalem (the great grand-daughter of Baha'u'llah) who has expressed her approval of it. If the article is to be deleted, I would favor it being merged within the Baha'i divisions article. Alison Hart — Alison Hart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The above editor has only two edits to their account. Second, a personal account is not considered a reliable source. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Merely asserting notability, does not so demonstrate. After over a week of sturm und drang over this, we still have yet to see any independent evidence that this is more than a few facebook friends and an active blogger behind this. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On the talk page for the Unitarian Bahaism page being discussed here someone supporting the article pointed out an entry in soulpancake. On reviewing the entries I came across this comment: "There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors." 3 weeks ago (search down the page for "wiki"). I don't quite know what to do about it but it seems this should be brought to a wider audience. People have talked about full disclosure. This seems to hint at a lot more going on. Smkolins (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the person who wrote that, but I know somebody who does know the person in question. The author of the quote you're referring to is not, to my knowledge, a member of the UBA but seems to be a supporter.  What I DO know is this: A few people who have edited the Unitarian Bahaism page have disclosed their identity either as UBA members, UU church members, ex-Bahai, or Orthodox Baha'i.  Most of these editors in fact are not UBA members, but are people who are interested in Unitarian Bahaism and maybe sympathetic to it.  The "lot more going on" that you mention may simply be that there are a variety of independent individuals who want to see Unitarian Bahaism mentioned in Wikipedia and who are therefore here editing the article.  Just as there are various Baha'is loyal to the Haifa organization here who are also editing the article.  Isn't that what one would expect would happen?  Many of the editors of this article, I think most of them, have already disclosed their religious affiliation, and it seems the affiliations of the editors are very diverse. Shiningdove (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the question on SoulPancake whether the page on Unitarian Bahaism should be kept or not and indicated the link to the page on Wikipedia. There might be people interested on this matter there in SoulPancake and contribute here in Wikipedia. I consider Alison a dear friend, as I tried to be courteous towards her in my discussions with her in Soulpancake. I have an interest on Unitarian Bahaism, but am not member of this Baha'i religion. I am member of the Orthodox Baha'i Faith.--Martin Lavallée 17:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. A few individuals seem to be using Wikipedia as a kind of adertisement. Sources are dubious and rely on personal websites or blogs. Info on Muhammad Ali is already in the Baha'i divisions page, and if credible sources are found, a mention on that page could be made to the handful of people who call themselves Unitarian Baha'is. Lastly, I want to point out that out of the 3 "keep" votes, while User:Stillwaterising is a real editor, User:Shiningdove has very few edits, over half of which are related to the page in question, and User:Alison Hart has only 2 edits. From a consensus point of view, that is relevant. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question and Comment -- Have you disclosed your own religious affiliation, as many of us have? Editors of this page have disclosed religious affiliations including Orthodox Baha'i (creator of the page), Unitarian Bahai (me), Unitarian Universalist (Stillwater, Dale Husband, and me), ex-Baha'i (Dale Husband), and Haifan/mainstream Baha'i (Jeff, Smkolins, and seemingly a couple others).  Considering that the people who have worked on this page are very diverse in their religious affiliations, and the page was created by a person who is not even a Unitarian Bahai, it doesn't seem like an attempt at advertising by one specific religious group. Shiningdove (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Cuñado stated that "User:Shiningdove has very few edits, over half of which are related to the page in question" which is clearly innaccurate. Shiningdove has made his/her first edit in July of 2008 and has made a total of 336 edits with 55 (16%) of them related to UB, Udiv, or related discussions. If this user is willing to falsify facts in an attempt to discredit his opposition, should Cuñado's comments be considered to be neutral and without bias? - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stillwaterising, I did not count sandbox edits. You are wrong to declare that I'm "falsifying facts". Same right back at you. This whole AFD has become a big sideshow and is no longer focused on WP:V and notability. Get back on track. Cuñado  ☼ -  Talk  09:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the accusation. I withdraw the comment. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to ask anyone who comments here to state his or her religious affiliation. Lady  of  Shalott  22:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment All the arguments presented have depended on reasons. Proof, acceptable sources, are the system we work with and has been consistently talked about especially from those wanting to delete the article. THose wanting to keep the article have rather consistently posted unacceptable sources for support of the existence of an independent article. As for the question for someone so well informed of rules and tagging of articles it is odd that you see so little about checking user pages for information we want to share. At this point - after a week of effort from 10 non-Bot editors - none of the references for the existence of the current group are acceptable and none of the references note that the group is notable on strength of numbers long ago or at present. That the group existed is already documented in the divisions article. Perhaps more could be said but hardly a whole article. But I don't see the comment "There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors." 3 weeks ago, about a week before the article existed, as not something that can be just passed up as if it were nothing. "team of warriors" does not imply "a variety of independent individuals". And almost everyone supporting the article are newish or absolutely new or somewhere in between. It sounds like a group of people who came together to make something happen in wikipedia and these same people bring up bad references repeatedly. The only good ones cover the existence of an earlier group already in the other article and a few comments that do not support the existence of the group then or now or anything about their significance. The few sentences about Nigar Bahai Amsalem for example say nothing about the group. They say she was interviewed in a mockumentary from which she withheld information and built a shrine on her grandfather's grave. So be it. It says nothing whatsoever about the supposed Unitarian Baha'is. This is the evidence and it is upon the evidence that a consensus is to be reached. Smkolins (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - can we get alittle help? From my reading of MARussellPESE's statements above he voted to delete but he's not showing in the stats that way. Smkolins (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this is true of Cuñado as well. Smkolins (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have submitted a detailed source-by-source run down of existing sources and why they are both reliable and suitable for notability purposes. In general, it only takes two reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and I have presented more than two. The arrangement against the reliability of the sources needs to include more information besides "they are unreliable." I have proven that reliable sources were used that have established notability and there's been no credible argument against them besides "self-published". Sources 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 14 are all published in reliable sources. As far as sourcing goes, this article is better than average in the number of reliable sources and unless somebody can come up with a convincing argument for each of the sources listed above, this subject can be presumed notable and can be considered suitable for inclusion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above is not true. Combining a list of facts from various sources to claim notability does not indicate them, when the sources don't actually mention the subject of the article by name, otherwise that would be synthesis and original research.  However, let's go over the sources that you state are providing notability.  Source 5 is not only self-published, it has been reviewed in the peer-reviewed journal Religion as being a polemic, and it doesn't mention the term Unitarian Bahaism, only that Muhammad Ali had problems with Abdu'l-Baha.  Source 6 is a source about source 5, and again doesn't mention the subject of the article.  Source 7 is about a separate fact, and again doesn't mention the subject of the article.  Source 8 is a primary source.  Source 11 is used to source a fact about Ibrahim George Kheiralla and doesn't mention the subject of the article.  Source 13 is the only source that is not self-published and notes the subject of the article.  Combine the above, with the total reliance of the lead and the second section with self-published sources clearly show that at best the page should be redirected.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - and source thirteen doesn't represent Browne's understanding of why they are called unitarian, but a translation of a letter (epitome) of a "Mirza Jawad" and others through the book about their use of the word and its understanding of why they call themselves unitarian; from the pov of supporters of Muhammad Ali. As far as translation goes then it supports that the term has a history and a claim of meaning but not Browne's endorsement that the claim is infact theologically sound as his understanding as an academic expert. Just bring precise.Smkolins (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment from anonymous user referring to MARussellPese's comments above
 * >... a scholarly and well researched book about the Bahai faith published by a Christian minister in the 1970s ...

The above is a grossly misleading statement! The book in question is neithere "scholarly" nor objective, and is in fact a subtly slanted attack on the Baha'i Faith which poses as objective but is no such thing! Further, it has been debunked and refuted in a published article titled "The Missionary as Historian" that's available on the baha'i-library.org web site, which article points out a number of the untruths that the original book hints at and never corrects, thus allowing the reader to draw the obvious (but incorrect) conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.51.96 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that comments "a scholarly and well researched book..." didn't come from MARussellPese. It came from " unsigned comment added byShiningdove" for what it's worth.Smkolins (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's really no such thing as an objective book about the Baha'i faith. All books written about it are either written by Baha'is themselves, who have an agenda to promote their faith, or by people who write about it to critique it. Therefore, the book by William Miller is no more biased than any other book written about this religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.62.37 (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliablity. Books published by academic publishers and academic journals are not most reliable, and those that are self-published are for the most part considered not reliable at all. Not only is William Miller's book self-published, but we have an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal saying that it's not reliable.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response -- Miller's book is not self-published. Its publisher is William Carey Library.  Can't you at least admit that virtually every book that's ever been written about the Bahai religion is written by someone with a bias?  Whether the bias is basically pro-Bahai or anti-Bahai, I've never come across a single book about the Bahai religion that is not written with the purpose of either making the religion look good or look bad -- with the possible exception of books by the scholar Edward Granville Browne, whose scholarly credentials and non-Bahai, disinterested status cannot be reasonably called into question.  Should we only use Browne as the only source for all articles on Wikipedia about the Bahai faith? Shiningdove (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Response - William Carey Library is a publisher and distributor of Christian missionary books - certain not an independent party. They are "selfpublished" from a Christian pov which is against anything not (their brand of ) Christian. Smkolins (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the fact that a publisher is a Christian publishing house mean that all of their books are therefore "self-published"? That makes absolutely no sense to me.  Are all books written about the Bahai faith and published by Bahai publishing houses also "self-published"?  Guess so, according to your logic.  But somehow I doubt that you'll be supporting putting the "self-published" tag on books that have been published by Bahai publishing houses. Shiningdove (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * - see Talk:Unitarian_Bahaism for discussion. Smkolins (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Baha'i Divisions with redirect I've carefully considered Jeff3000's latest comments about synthesis and original research and have decided to change my vote. In addition this page can be userfied and used as a resource and could eventually be moved back into mainspace once proper context is establish. I would expect in the near future reliable independent secondary sources will be available on modern Unitarian Baha'ism. My hope is that people of all faiths can read and understand this article and also be able to contribute. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Merger seems like a reasonable option to me, provided that a substantial portion of the Unitarian Bahaism article is retained as a new section of Baha'i divisions, and that Unitarian Bahaism itself is not deleted but instead set to redirect to that new section of Baha'i divisions. The Baha'i divisions article needs major work and I would like to be involved in helping to improve that article; not only a new portion of it about Unitarian Bahaism but also other parts too.  I also want to say that I agree with Stillwaterising that if Unitarian Bahaism is redirected to Baha'i divisions, it should be restored to an article of its own if and when reliable printed sources become available to link the historical and modern versions of this religious tradition, which is likely to happen fairly soon. Shiningdove (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing various versions of proposals that have been floated in various places with various complexities. Let's get a couple things in the background. Wikipedia always allows any article to be supplemented with appropriate references that improve an article. There is no proposal necessary to have special rights to improve an article. Can that get rid of some of these complexities? Nor does any article require "I want in on it". Any editor can always try to improve any article(except for blocked users and protected pages and I don't see that about to begin (normally comes from excessive vandalism.)) I think it comes down to this: "** Redirect Unitarian Bahaism to Bahá'í divisions or a section thereof from which something of the article would go." IF that is consensus then we can focus on just what such a section would be.Smkolins (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I made the comment referenced above ("There will eventually be a Wikipedia entry on the UBA along with a team of edit warriors") in reply to a question addressed to me by Martin Lavallee in the course of a conversation on SoulPancake. "Team of warriors" may not imply "a variety of independent individuals" but neither does it necessarily imply "a group of people who came together to make something happen in wikipedia." To the best of my knowledge, the creation of this article on Unitarian Bahaism was entirely at the initiative of Mr. Lavallee, who for some reason completely unknown to me now refers to me as "one of my dearest friends," despite the fact that I have not had any contact with him outside of SoulPancake, and that not for some time. Yes, there was intent among some supporters of the UBA to submit a Wikipedia entry *at some point* but I had no foreknowledge at all of Mr. Lavallee's initiative. Had I been informed of his intention in advance, I might have thought it premature. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there are at present no formal requirements for membership in the UBA, so one can hardly be a member of an organization which has no membership requirements. At this point, I think "a mention ... could be made to the handful of people who call themselves Unitarian Baha'is" would be adequate, given the lack of acceptable sources. Alison Hart —Preceding undated comment added 01:48, 17 April 2010 (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.