Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aga Khani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, along what Bluerain said. I'm recreating a redirect to Aga Khan, as most of the information is referenced there. Teke (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aga Khani

Aga Khani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tagged for speedy on the grounds that this is a pejorative term and not a real sect, but that's not really speediable. Needs more eyes. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The only verifiable section is Incumbent Imam which was copied directly from Aga Khan. -- Aylahs (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Article violates WP:POVFORK by using Aga Khani to refer to diminutively to the Nizari Ismaili community. It undermines WP:NPOV by imposing unbalanced, incomplete and imagined ideas in the beliefs section. Finally, the name Aga Khani qualifies this article as libellous since its content could justifiably be considered defamatory by the Aga Khan. -- Aylahs (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as POVish fork of Nizari Ismaili. A search turns up non-pejorative use of the term, so perhaps a mention in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per the above. - Merzbow 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why delete

It seems to me that if there is a google search that shows and confirms the term Aga Khani than it should be mentioned. Most of the Pakistanis know the followers of Aga Khan as Aga Khani so 140 million people according to the user should be disregarded. Maybe as in the artice on nation of islam there is a link to the criticism of Nation of Islam, than a similar link should be placed for Nizari Ismailis

trueblood 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment We certainly don't need a separate article on it if it's just going to be a fork of Aga Khan or Nizari Ismaili. Aylahs or someone else who would know, is this term one that would be incredibly offensive if we just redirected it to Aga Khan? It's obviously a real word, so it would be a good idea to redirect it somewhere just so that in six months, this doesn't come up again. But if that would be the functional equivalent of redirecting a racial slur to the article on that race, there's no real need for it. --BigDT 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    It is not a racial slur, but the term is used in pejorative reference to the Ismailis. It is conceivable that it could also be used out of ignorance, so the redirect is a good compromise. I agree with Bluerain's arguments below - the article should be deleted. -- Aylahs (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I second Aylahs... Pakistan govt. also considers Qadanis to be non-Muslims. Surely it cant be called a WP:RS. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 05:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ismaili. TruthSpreaderreply 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Aga Khani' refers to Nizari Ismailis (for whom the Aga Khan is the current Imam), which already has an article, so there's no point in it having a separate article. While having a redirect may seem harmless –– (1) the term is something that arises out of ignorance; it is never used in an academic setting which makes it unfit for an encyclopedia, (2) the community does not refer to itself as 'Aga Khani'; if anything, it is considered pejorative by members of the community. (3) people searching for 'Aga Khani' might as well search for 'Aga Khan' and come across the same thing – so having a redirect doesn't serve much purpose. Hence, Delete. --Bluerain talk 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article's name Aga Khani is clearly pejorative, therefore inherently biased, violating WP:NPOV. Scoutfinch07 19:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources found about Aga Khani Miks110 20:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi All. The term Aga Khani literally means of Aga Khan in Hindi/Urdu. A rough translation would be Followers of Aga Khan. Though I don't know much about the sect, you can rest assured that it exists. The other term used to describe the members of the sect is Ismaili. I am not sure if Aga Khani sect is an offshoot/part of Ismaili sect or not. The above information was confirmed by one of my muslim friends, who is not an Aga Khani. Sorry for not being much help. I'll post more if I find more about it. Mahalo! --Vikas Kumar Ojha Talk to me! 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The term Aga Khani is favoured by extremists who falsely claim that the Ismailis believe the Aga Khan to literally be God. They use the term to spread false information about the community's beliefs and practices and encourage their persecution. It is a dangerous term, conveying a very narrow point of view. By its very name, this article would lend support to extremist propaganda. Cimm[talk] 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As with Nation of Islam which has both sides, why is Users here getting so upset as in Nation of Islam there is a separate section of their beliefs. So there is nothing wrong with having this article. Aga Khan followers in India and Pakistan use this term to identify themselves so it is proper.trueblood 05:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that as in Nation of Islam Article there is a link to critism of Nation of Islam where the other side is also listed could be a proper compromise so both sides have their opinions listed. why not do the same here. An insert a link to a new article where the other side is also told
  • Strong Keep* In todays world we in the United States see bombings between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq and than witness all kinds of individuals stating that they are the main stream Islam, while in fact Mainstream muslims who constitute over 99% of Islam in Shia and Sunnis but people dont know who to look at. In fact, if one is to look up the suicide bombers it is clear that most of them are members of a sect that follows extremist views such as going to heaven by killing innocent people, while vast majority of muslims are clearly opposed to this. In order to understand Islam and the mainstream Islam it is incumbent upon the editors to have these cults and sects in one section where it is all for see what these small sects really beliveve in. For instance, the Qadianis claim they have 200 million followers while in fact they have less than 10 million members, the Aga Khanis are less than 5 million members, the Nation of Islam maybe one half million, these sects are not mainstreams.

Just as in Christianity there are the cults such as David Koresh's Branch Dravidians, and the Chritian Identity up in Idaho, those cults do not represent mainstream Christianity, and these cults are listed separately. If one is to look up th Encyclopedia of American Religion, Fourth Edition by J. Gordon Melton, The Encylcopedia lists every single religion in America, including each of the cults mentioned in this article. Thus to delete this article would be unfair.

In fact it would be the same as deleting on the Nation of Islam article the critisms of Nation of Islam. In fact if one puts up anything in the Ismaili article the users who are followers of that particular brand of Islam call it vandalism, while in fact it is a viewpoint which is different than that held by the followers. In one instance a statement was added to the Wahabi sect and a user from Israel objected, eventhough, I doubt very much that Israelis have a very deep understanding of Wahabis, the user called it vandalism, while in truth and fact the United States Government and in particulara the FBI has stated that Wahabis are extremists and that the 9/11 hijackers were all wahabis and that Osama Bin Ladin proclaims himself to be a Wahabi, but the reference was deleted as being untrue and as vandalism.

Here if one is to listen to the argument put forward by the adherents of the view that Islam is a pluralistic religion and all are accepted, than we would not be witnessing over 90 dead bodies in Iraq everyday. In fact my own nephew who was with the 4ID in Iraq was a victim of the cultish violence, in fact he won a purple heart for his bravery. We have to identify the cults in Islam so that the world can see that these cult followers even with their billions of dollars who have bought our Government in Washington, do not in fact represent Islam.

Obvioiusly, the Mormon cultist who was marying off 12 year old girls also did not consider himself to be a cultist. If only the viewpoint of the particular follower of the cult or sect are listed than Wikipedia cannot be called an Encyclopedia but rather a proponent of only the views of the sects or cults that want to propogate their own viewpoints.

I hope that the editors are mindful of the viewpoint that to make a complete encyclopedia all viewpoints must be published.

Thanks for taking the time to consider the above.

  • Strong Keep
  • keep To me, deletes which seem to have some relationship to bias and POV on a religious topic are an indication that the article must be kept, DGG 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Proabivouac 04:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The arguments made against the deletion of this article express personal bias and emotional appeal, and are based on hearsay rather than fact. The facts are clear:
The facts demonstrate that it is impossible for an article bearing the name Aga Khani to exist without breaching Wikipedia's cardinal policies of maintaining a neutral point of view and being verifiable. Additionally, with the libellous invented statements about so-called beliefs, the course of action is clear. I stand by my assertion that this article be deleted, and further request that it be permanently protected against recreation. -- Aylahs (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Reply to User Aylahs

Former members of this cult or sect have numerous websites that say the same thing, I have not seen the Aga Khan file a defamation suit anywhere in the world to say that these are false. Every cult in history has said that anyone who says anything about their cult or sect is clearly libelous, see former members of the Church of Scientology or Branch Dravidians or now Aga Khanis.

Everyone says the same things. So to put forward both views is what Wikipedia is all about.

trueblood 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • ,,,Strong keep,,, I reside in New jersy, and hear their are many Aga Khani people. This page gives in depth inside on the history and present day Aga Khani people OIA819
  • Strong keep genuine sect. KazakhPol 07:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — It needs to be expaded and cleaned up, but it's a real sect and therefore does not merit deletion. Wizardman 17:21, 15 January 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.