Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah

Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Origional research Sefringle^Talk 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - When you say WP:OR you refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. It is not the case. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and many other references in Arabic and few other languages. I'd ask the creator to use other references. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, you just copied the same message onto all my afd nominations, making me wonder if you are making an opinion based on the editor rather than the actual value of the article. With the sources, source 1 isn't related to the topic, source 2 seems to be on a different topic as well. Source 3 is about a person in modern times. The article Nusaybah Bint k’ab Al Maziniyyah said it is from the time of the Battle of Uhud, which is a completely different time period. Source 4 isn't reliable, and source 5 is doesn't even mention this person.--Sefringle^Talk 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is possible to cite sources for this article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Than please do.--Sefringle^Talk 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per FayssalF. And also, since you use this rationale in several places: WP:OR refers to original interpretations and theories (typically in science or history), not unsourced material about real people, places, or objects. Debates about biographies are generally based on WP:BIO and WP:V. cab 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. WP:V#Burden of evidence states "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As the article itself lacks reliable third party sources, Wikipedia shouldn't have it.--Sefringle^Talk 08:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting that sentence. By article topic we mean the subject of the article, not the article itself. JulesH 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per refs provided by FayssalF which I've added to the article. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously, she is notable and all of people of that early war is notable. --- A. L. M. 10:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All known associates of Muhammad are notable, just like all known associates of Jesus. Mowsbury 12:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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.