- 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. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shafiqah Shasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. admittedly this person died in 1953, but nothing in gnews and gbooks. google just shows WP mirrors or namesakes. I can't even verify the existence of this individual in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check whether the source given in the article confirms her existence? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless someone is able to confirm that the cited book does not back her notability. With articles on people that lived and died before the Internet came up I believe we should agf on offline references even if nothing else comes up at Google, even if that book has had only local impact, as evidenced by this catalog search. --Pgallert (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the book might exist but one source is not sufficient to base a WP article on. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in principle. However, the reality is that, up to C class, articles with one independent source are generally accepted. Let's concentrate on deleting the unsourced ones first. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this AfD is active, there is no point asking for close as keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the valuable link. My policy-based reason was, however, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:IAR: For as long as nobody can look up this book, or search in Lebanese, or with other spellings of this name, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article. Alternatively, as Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. (WP:N, footnote 3) please suggest a possible merge target rather than proposing to remove the content right away, to counter WP:BIAS. --Pgallert (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- this AfD is active, there is no point asking for close as keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in principle. However, the reality is that, up to C class, articles with one independent source are generally accepted. Let's concentrate on deleting the unsourced ones first. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as well. A source exists and I agree with Pgallert that we should assume good faith that it is accurate until proven otherwise. For non-North American/Western European people of generations ago, it is often very hard to find good sources online. If they exist in print, that is more than fine with me.--TM 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- even if the one source is accurate, the claims for notability do not meet WP:BIO. WP:AGF does not apply to assuming notability exists when it cannot be backed with multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above, stub articles don't necessarily require a great deal of sourcing, particularly when dealing with content pre-internet. WP:GOODFAITH in regards to the claim of notablity leads me to believe unless someone contests the source the stub should remain. One can hardly argue this is a case of the author including themselves given the individual of focus is long dead. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the arguments given above are not convincing to delete - SatuSuro 12:24, 13 June 2011 (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.