Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleviler
Recap; ''"there seems to be a range of meanings, some of which may be rather broad  just distinct  meanings"'' would be the defintion of indiscriminant collection of Wikipedia articles not supported by sources. We use "sourcing" to prevent |original research and |synthesis so where is the multiple reliable sources? Google this "idiom", even Google books, or try Google news, and someone let me know where there is acceptable |reliable sources to even place this idiom in the "Alevi history" article. The charts splattered all over Wikipedia related articles, such as the first one in this article, shows Alevis under the ''Twelvers''. It breaks across (and down) from there to "Other Alevis": Schools of Islamic theology#Baktāshism (Bektaşilik) (Bektashism and folk religion and Bektashi Order) then further down the tree is Ishikism|Işık Alevis. If these charts are acceptable made up (no sourcing) could someone add this unsupported idiom so we can follow it? Alevi, Alevism, Alavids, Alevileri, and now presenting "Aleviler" that is suppose to be an "idiom" or Religious syncretism|syncretic sect, sub-order or "branch", ''or definition'' that is suppose to ''characterize'' the links in the lead. None of this is supported in the article nor the "definition" section that has one reference. The rest of the references are used to support the compilation (collection) of Wikipedia links in the ''Classification of Aleviler'' section. Lacking sourcing to tie all these together how is this not synthesis. Lacking multiple sources to confirm that "Aleviler" is more than an idiom or definition, how can we support an independent article? The article states: ''"Many groups call themselves as Alevi but they don't share Muslim Alevi faith described in this article. All these people are called "Aleviler" in Turkish."'' (that is not referenced) and then there are more links and none (that I found) present "Aleviler". If we are going to !vote keep it would seem  a better reasoning than "range of meanings, some of which may be rather broad  just distinct  meanings" and using Wikipedia to advance these
— User:Otr500, 08:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:RS||WP:IAR (Wikipedia:No original research)