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.
Keep [changed per comments below about sources] Delete. As noted by the nominator, the current article has no references whatsoever that actually mention Mir Shamsuddin. I've found brief mentions in unreliable sources
[1][2] and brief mentions in what may or may not be reliable sources
[3][4]. It's possible he could be notable, but at this point proof is lacking. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Source 4 is a journal entry with numerous sources from Oxford University. Source 3 is an organization for sufis in Pakistan. In addition, here are other sources that mention him:
These individual sources establish at least some notability for the subject, even if not all three of them are reliable. My only suggesion is that the article be moved to
Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi because that is what the sources seem to call him (the article itself puts "the Iraqi" after his name in bold in the first sentence of the article).
PointsofNoReturn (
talk) 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The fourth of the four sources given by
User:Traveling Man is an upload of a reliable source - the original is a chapter in
this book published by
Oxford University Press. In addition,
this book, which also seems to be a reliable source, devotes most of a page to his career, and GBooks produces at least a few more passing mentions (as well as a number of false positives). Where one is looking at religious figures of about 500 years ago from outside Europe, there does tend to be quite a degree of
systemic bias - with what look like two solid sources, I regard notability as established, though we could certainly do with more.
PWilkinson (
talk) 10:30, 19 October 2014 (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.
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.
Keep [changed per comments below about sources] Delete. As noted by the nominator, the current article has no references whatsoever that actually mention Mir Shamsuddin. I've found brief mentions in unreliable sources
[1][2] and brief mentions in what may or may not be reliable sources
[3][4]. It's possible he could be notable, but at this point proof is lacking. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 06:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Source 4 is a journal entry with numerous sources from Oxford University. Source 3 is an organization for sufis in Pakistan. In addition, here are other sources that mention him:
These individual sources establish at least some notability for the subject, even if not all three of them are reliable. My only suggesion is that the article be moved to
Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi because that is what the sources seem to call him (the article itself puts "the Iraqi" after his name in bold in the first sentence of the article).
PointsofNoReturn (
talk) 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. The fourth of the four sources given by
User:Traveling Man is an upload of a reliable source - the original is a chapter in
this book published by
Oxford University Press. In addition,
this book, which also seems to be a reliable source, devotes most of a page to his career, and GBooks produces at least a few more passing mentions (as well as a number of false positives). Where one is looking at religious figures of about 500 years ago from outside Europe, there does tend to be quite a degree of
systemic bias - with what look like two solid sources, I regard notability as established, though we could certainly do with more.
PWilkinson (
talk) 10:30, 19 October 2014 (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.