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 keep. Sandstein 18:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayatollahs[edit]

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

List of Ayatollahs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ayatollah is an honorific title, and its usage in such a way is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. It's like having a List of His Excellencies or List of Right Honourables. This list is not comparable to List of popes or List of current Maraji, because "Ayatollah" is not a religious position. Secondly, Ayatollah is a title in use since the mid 20th century in Iran (See Ayatollahs#Usage by location), so it is not applicable to a 17th century Indian. Inclusion of a person in such a list, would also prone it to POV issues (See Ayatollah#Political connotations and discussions made in the talkpage Talk:List of Ayatollahs#Syed Aqeel-ul-Gharavi Talk:List of Ayatollahs#Hosseini Nassab self-proclamation). I propose deleting this list. Pahlevun (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: It has been previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs and my point is that "Ayatollah", unlike a Marja', is no religious position. It is simply a honorific title without a clear criteria for inclusion. There is no clear criteria for being addressed to as an "Ayatollah", which is also on Wikipedia a violation MOS:TITLES. Pahlevun (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That CFD resulted in no consensus, and demonstrated a disagreement with your characterization of the subject and its significance. So that again weighs against your AFD here. I'd suggest continuing discussion on an appropriate Wikiproject or article talk page, and waiting until you get a higher level of participation as well as a clear consensus before trying to delete anything else. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Postdlf: Which place do you think is the right place discuss this? Pahlevun (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schetm: The question is not whether to listify or categorize "Ayatollah"s and this is clearly not a forum to discuss who should this list include. I am saying that no such list should exist on Wikipedia because Ayatollah is a title, not a position, and there is no clear criteria to address someone with that title. That violates WP:CLNT, which states lists should have a coherent and clear criteria for inclusion. It's just like having a List of Monsignors. There is no such system like a Church to grant people with the title Ayatollah (so that we would have something like List of Catholic saints). The problem is that an average English speaker thinks an Ayatollah is someone with a specific religious position like a Bishop. But academic sources do not use the word Ayatollah in the sense that Western media tend to use. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be written using scholarly sources. Moojan Momen has written about this in his various books. Pahlevun (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for inclusion is, or should be, simple: list entries are demonstrated in reliable sources to have been granted the title Ayatollah or are widely known by the title Ayatollah. The problem of a misunderstanding of the term Ayatollah, can be easily solved by defining the term in prose in the lede. Maybe the list should be named; maybe a discussion on inclusion regarding who should be included in the list should take place, but the list serves points 1 and 2 of WP:LISTPURP well, and losing the list would be to the detriment of readers exploring the topic. schetm (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2020 (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.
More