Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khanna Omarkhali

:{{la|Khanna Omarkhali}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khanna_Omarkhali Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Khanna Omarkhali}})

A woeful lack of sources indicates that notability is completely lacking. Utterly fails to meet WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dorpater (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The mere fact that the authors books were listed in the article Yazidis bibliography section before I even touched it demonstrates that this author is one of the foremost researchers in this topic (obviously, as a religion with less than a million adherents the subject Yazidiism itself remains obscure).
  Add to this all the Google Scholar hits [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=khanna+omarkhali&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5] [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0+%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5], and 768 Google Books hits to get the picture how important Omarkhali is in Kurdish studies.
  Clear case of AfD launched out of ignorance.Dorpater (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

::What those google scholar links show is that citations to her work are negligible. As for book hits -- go ahead and count 'em. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

:::Yeah, and how many Yazidism scholars do have more citations? Could you name one or two? Even {{Find sources AFD|Qanate Kurdo}} (Kanat Kurdoyev) would need to be deleted as his number of citations is so much lower than Omarkhali's. And last but least, the whole bibliography section of the article Yazidis would need to be deleted by your logic.
The bottom line is: Yazidism is a relatively small ethnoreligious community which doesn't appear so often in the newspaper headlines, but that doesn't mean standard scholars on Yazidism should all be deleted in order to make room for American pornstars or Pokemon characters. Dorpater (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Question. There are only two references on page. First only tells where she works and what she does. According to text, She is known as one of the foremost researchers of Yazidism in Russosphere [2nd ref]. What exactly this 2nd reference tells about her? Can you quote it directly, please? My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

::The second reference is to the title of her book. It doesn't support that claim at all. There appears to be no source material about her. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete in present state. I would vote "keep" for the version of this page created on ruwiki and I will change my vote to "keep" if this page will be significantly improved. However, this English version simply does not tell anything of substance about the subject and does not provide adequate referencing. This is too poor quality even for a stub. We talked about several other similar pages created by Dorpater [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dorpater&oldid=705999144#BLP_pages before]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• However, this English version simply does not tell anything of substance about the subject and does not provide adequate referencing - what is more substantial in case of a scholar apart from his/her main fields of research? Whether she is married or not and whether she is a cat person or a dog person? And unfortunately I would not be able to expand the article from Ru wiki with you guys, because not every sentence there has a footnote and you will immediately use it as a justification to disrupt me.
  Btw, both of you "Putin specialists", how come you all landed here short time after I had expressed views you disagree with concerning the article on him [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=705998372]. Sudden bout of Orientalism (never saw you editing anything related ever before) or something more eery such as retaliatory editing? Dorpater (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

:::What else should be included in the page? Content that has been already included in the corresponding page on ruwiki. Here is link. Pages you created, especially BLPs should satisfy some very minimal requirements for stubs, especially if sources on the subject can be easily found by someone who knows Russian, as in this case. That's the point, and it is about improvement of content, rather than about anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

::::According to your logic, the article on Richard Sakwa (just a random example) would also need to be deleted, as it only lists his most important fields of study and lists his more important works. Just like I did with Khanna Omarkhali. Just compare the articles. Dorpater (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I would definitely vote to delete page on Richard Sakwa. This page has no sources to establish notability of the person except his own publications.My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

::I'm not sure of the usefulness of the Russian version here: most of it is an academic CV in prose. Uanfala (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

:::But there are useful segments there as well. E.g. this one: В конце 2005 года увидела свет первая книга Ханны Омархали (Усоян) „Йезидизм: из глубины тысячелетий“[24], выпущенная Издательским домом Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета. В ней рассматриваются основные религиозные представления езидов, особенности их вероучения и культа, описывается кастово-теократический принцип деления традиционного езидского общества, приводится терминологический словарь, прилагается перечень езидских родов. Выход книги был удостоен большой положительной рецензии на страницах приложения „Независимая газета“ — Религии».On the other hand, I can see no reason why an article about a scholar of an obscure field needs to be longer than a short introduction ('stub'). --Dorpater (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Dorpater (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Dorpater (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As the nominator notes, the relevant standard is PROF. There is some assertion of PROF 1 ("significant impact in their scholarly discipline"), but nothing verified. The book cited only says, "Currently Khanna Omarkhali, who was trained as an orientalist in St. Petersburg and is also an expert on Yezidism, is lecturer of Kurdish and research associate at Göttingen" and lists a handful of publications. That does not seem satisfactory. Maybe someone would like to argue PROF 7 ("substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") or PROF 4 ("significant impact in the area of higher education"). Barring that, though, I would say that notability is not verified. Cnilep (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

::Well that's an interesting argument! Someone who was listed (before I started editing) in the respective wikipedia article on Yazidis#Further reading (and the section is quite short there!) is not relevant enough for Wikipedia to have even a small special BIO article on her. Odd.
If this kind of logic prevails, I'm not inclined to even start an article on Philip Kreyenbroek (accidentally also Omarkhali's co-author) who is not only the foremost specialist on Yazidis in a special language sphere, but belongs to the absolute top in the World. Dorpater (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep He seems to meet WP:PROF as an authority on his subject, looking at worldcat his book Religious Minorities in Kurdistan: Beyond the Mainstream published by Harrassowitz, a German academic publisher of the highest prestige, is in 54 libraries -- given the subject, that's quite significant. His Kurdish reader : modern literature and oral texts in Kurmanji : with Kurdish-English glossaries and grammatical sketch is in 30, and according to WorldCat is the only important English language textbook in the field. Given the subject , that may be enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 02:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Essentially per DGG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.