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. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jafari Tabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No real claim of significance is made other than the claims near the end involving memorizing and reciting the Qur'an and it's not really clear why that is important. The sources all seem to be related to his death sentence, which may be important enough for an article (it seems to have received some media attention), but this aspect isn't even discussed in the article, and what is in the article is as far as I can tell, not covered in the sources (though I will admit I was unable to translate many of the sources).  DiscantX 01:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing to suggest he is a notable scholar or academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can the nom evaluate the article if he can't read most of the sources? It should be given the benefit of the doubt on notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I brought it here rather than a simple speedy. There seems to be a claim of notability, in which case it should be brought in front of the community. But in that case, we need to decide in what way is he notable? Is he notable because of his apparent (possibly unsourced) claims to an extensive knowledge of the Quran? Or is it because of what most of the sources seem to cite, that he was executed? Or is he simply not notable enough for an article? Whatever the decision, my hope was that both a second set of eyes would see it and help decide, and that maybe someone here could help translate the sources. While we most definitely do allow non-English sources, it's still up to us to do our damndest to decipher them.  DiscantX 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with articles like this is that because they don't look how we would like them to look, follow our ideal layout, use the language sources that would make our life easier etc., they are treated as less credible when there is actually something important there. He is a religious figure who has been sentenced to death (and his wife too) about whom a lot of people have written it seems. I would prefer to wait until someone with strong English-Arabic skills comes along. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the article so long as notability can be established. As I said though, notability is not clear, and so it deserves a second look. That said, articles on the English Wikipedia do need to meet certain WP:MOS guidelines. Articles DO need to meet our ideal layout; rather or not it meets a certain philosophy or western way of thinking is another matter, but simple structure and flow are important. These aren't things to consider when considering for deletion, of course, but rather things to consider for later editing of the article if it is kept. Even if the article is kept, it needs a drastic rewrite, and in that case, what are we going to include? Until someone can translate the sources, I don't see this article deserving more than a maybe a paragraph on his execution. Either way, most of the article is unencyclopedic in style and if it does stay, someone needs to rewrite it to pick out the pertinant facts and nothing more.  DiscantX 10:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: its German Wikipedia counterpart says that the guy was an ayatollah, so in that regard he may be notable. The article does need a whole lot of cleanup though, but userfying it seems useless as the creator has not edited since the day he/she created the page in 2015. I'll see if I can prune some of the non-encyclopedic stuff in the coming hour. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My Google Chrome had no problem translating the pages. The first one seems to be a Bibliography search and the other is a blog entry. Both are not reliable sources. The searches that I did find had some mention of an Ayatollah but that seems to be a different person. All the rest of the references seem to be calling him a "clergyman". Unfortunately, many people have been executed for their religious beliefs and I don't see this exceeding the notability guide lines for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pmedema, it's worth noting that when I made the nom, that diff had many more sources listed. There may be something more in them, but my Chrome wouldn't translate most so I'm not sure.  DiscantX 09:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended and I apologize if I came across as such. - Pmedema (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His father was an ayatollah but notability is not inherited. As for memorizing the Quran, according to List of Hafiz, millions of people have accomplished that goal, so it is not a plausible claim of notability in itself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 5 May 2016 (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.