Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Abu Yusuf Bin Saamaan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only "citations" are sources which don't appear to be in English and GoogleBooks documents whose nature seems questionable. After a few years of the citation tag being there, I'm not convinced that anyone will take the initiative to prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Must be kept.Notability is already established.Msoamu (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like on the other articles for deletion, could you clarify? The only sources provided are names of publications; the publishing dates, authors and even mediums are not given. There's absolutely no way to independently verify any of these sources as it stands now, and I am not convinced of the subject's notability or even existence; the primary contributor to both the English and Urdu articles is only one guy who has created a number of articles consisting entirely of OR, hence my suspicion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - notwithstanding the Talk page rights or wrongs, MezzoMezzo, you seem to think AfD is here to bump articles into getting sources or else. It isn't. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I never thought that deletion was a tool to force the addition of sources. Per points six, seven and eight on WP:DEL-REASON, the nominations seemed appropriate. My comments here regarding sources, however unclear they may be, were merely an attempt to reconcile with the opposition given (which I hadn't expected). I hope that makes sense, even if it isn't entirely correct. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources that are not in English are pefectly acceptable. nominating based on a lack of English sources, even in part, is a bit of a no-no. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Retraction then, based on the information presented here. It seems I need to brush up on deletion policy a bit more. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2013 (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.