Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maghāriya

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maghāriya[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is page has a subject that has no little potential to grow beyond a stub (based on the unreliable/trivial current sourcing, and the results of WP:BEFORE searches). The main source currently supporting it, the Jewish Virtual Library, is unreliable, and itself covers it in a listicle. The only other mentions of the subject anywhere are extremely trivial, typically just mentioned in a list alongside other minor sects, such as in the in this source. This does not provide any scope for the meaningful expansion of the topic, which ultimately fails to establish its notability due to the sheer triviality of its coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Suitable and verifiable supporting tertiary sourcing was found. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is page has a subject that has no potential to grow beyond a stub. How can you possibly know that? Sects of major religions are certainly notable. Sourcing is sparse, but sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: What source have you found that suggests otherwise? The only source with substantial coverage is an unreliable one. Every other mention I have seen is in trivial list form. What sources have you found that establish WP:GNG, and offer the possibility of anything more than a perpetual stub? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some religions have hundreds if not thousands of minor sects. I fail to see how the blanket inclusion of sects, no matter how minor or unheard of, actually conforms with the notability guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you claim to be unreliable itself lists a number of sources. Have you checked all of these? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the legible 1967 one, and it fails verification. I haven't delved much into the foreign language 19th-century sources or those simply without any titles (or pages) at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a major topic, but a Google books search brings up quite a lot of mentions, other encyclopaedic works have chosen to give them at least some mention, and I don't think we should delete based on the idea that the sources are in foreign languages and/or 18th century; some fields of research evolve slowly, and there is no obligation to publish knowledge in English. There is also some discussion of them half way down this blog-thread at earlywritings.com[1] where more sources might also be gleaned by a future editor. They're not huge, but it looks to me as though they have their small and documented corner of theological history, and we should reflect that. Elemimele (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first source on the blog is the same as the Jewish Virtual Library material, which appears to be plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Judaica given the presence of disembodied and unlinked notes such as (For the modern period see *Subbotniki; *Somrei Sabat.). However, if this is the case, it would seem to suggest that there is a solid Encyclopaedia Judaica entry, though obviously taking the word of a plagiarizing unreliable source on the matter is itself a dubious proposition. The second source interestingly presents a different spelling, the Magarites, for what would appear to be the same group, although no source I can find seems to mention both names in tandem, making it WP:SYNTH-y to assume they are the same. There are certainly a few other snippets of information floating around the internet, if not yet really tied together by any modern source into a cohesive secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Jewish Virtual Library page doesn't plagiarize the Encyclopaedia Judaica, it explicitly states that it's reproducing the Encyclopedia Judaica: "Source: Encyclopaedia Judaica. © 2008 The Gale Group. All Rights Reserved." We shouldn't have ended up at AFD for this. Jahaza (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unreliable source, so it cannot be relied upon to faithfully reproduce anything, even when it is claiming to breach the copyright of material it has no rights to (a problem in its own right, and a reason why gunrel may actually be overly generous for the JVL). The lack of any guarantee of information fidelity is sort of the point with unreliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once you knew that there might be an Encyclopaedia Judaica article, you should have looked for it before listing it for deletion. The article is available in a free and properly licensed version from Encyclopedia.com[2]. You could have easily discovered this by visiting the Encyclopaedia Judaica Wikipedia page. This is not the first time you've listed Judaism topics for deletion that turn out to have major reference work coverage. Jahaza (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza WP:AGF - useful information that since 2022 much of the 2007 edition is at encyclopedia.com - useful information that you could have easily delivered in a civil way. Try that next time. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If necessary, can be merged to Jewish religious movements. But I don't really see a problem with short articles. All good encyclopedias have them. Note that Google distinguishes beween ā and a. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It turns out that there is a Jewish Encyclopedia entry for this, which is a tertiary public domain source that can serve as an adequate anchor for the page to replace the unreliable JVL. Given that this source exists, it's surprising that it was not used in the first place. I will now be withdrawing the nomination. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is solid (if short). It does not meet any criteria in WP:DEL-REASON. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.