Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Firman


 * 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   no consensus. Merging can be dealt with on the respective article talk pages \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Armen Firman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Double entry: Armen Firman and Abbas Ibn Firnas are one and the same person, with Armen Firman being only the latinized version. The claim is that there were two different persons in 9th century Cordoba, Spain: one jumping with a cloak from a tower, and the other one, apparently having been inspired, some years later gliding with a set of feathery wings from a hill. This is according to my research wrong. In fact, there was only one person, the notable poet Abbas Ibn Firnas, who was said to have made the gliding experiment.

Reasoning: Both reproduce - identically - the original source, a 17th century Moroccan author. From White:
 * The two webpages who support the view of two persons don't cite their references, therefore it remains unclear where they got their material from (see here and here).
 * In contrast, two scholarly resources which dealt with Abbas Ibn Firnas and with his flight attempt do not mention an Armen Firman. These are:
 * Terias, Elias, Sobre el vuelo de Abbas Ibn Firnas, Al-Andalus, 29:2 (1964) p.365
 * Lynn Townsend White, Jr. (Spring, 1961). "Eilmer of Malmesbury, an Eleventh Century Aviator: A Case Study of Technological Innovation, Its Context and Tradition", Technology and Culture 2 (2), p. 97-111 [100-101].

"Among other very curious experiments which he made," continues al- Maqqari, " one is his trying to fly. He covered himself with feathers for the purpose, attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when, according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one."

This is all, they both explicitly state that no other source on Abbas' flight attempt has survived. Unless we can substantiate the existence of Armen Firman in a scholarly work, which in turn provides its source(s), chances are that Armen Firman never existed. Because if he did, he should have been mentioned by those two scholars who explicitly deal with Abbas' flight.

There is also a biography on Abbas, which could help verify Abbas' Latin name, but I don't have it at hand: "Abbas Ibn Firnas", by Juan Vernet, in: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, I:5. The delete - as opposed to a merge - is important because, due to the story of Armen Firman circulating in the net, it is only a question of time, until an article on him is created, so we better need a delete log. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close If they are about the same person, then you should be talking about merging the two articles, not deleting one of them. I don't see why a delete log entry changes any of that, it could just be redirected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave my reasoning exactly one cm above your comment. If you are the one who puts the page permanently on your watchlist, in order to prevent Armen Firman from repeatedly being resurrected from the web, where unverified information about him circulates widely, then fine. I say we need a delete log for that and, first of all, we need to establish beyond doubt here whether Armen Firman existed or not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Having an entry in the deletion log won't stop someone from creating the article. It could be redirected to Abbas Ibn Firnas and if there are problems it could be protected. That would be more helpful to readers than deleting it simply to establish precedent for deleting it again. I've never heard of an article being deleted for reasons like this and I don't think it's would be a good idea to start now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon reviewing this some more, your whole argument is based on not believing one of the sources for the article, because there may be some minor factual errors regarding the dates. So, the core issue is which is whether or not the sources provided are reliable enough to be used as sources for a Wikipedia article in the first place, and/or if there are other sources (as opposed to opinion and WP:OR) that specifically refute the current sources. However, even if it turns out that they were the same person, this article should still be left as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the MuslimHeritage and Islam Online articles directly contradict each other, the first says it is the latinized version, the second says they were two separate persons. I'm not sure either of these sites qualify as reliable. The third source is a program from the University of Houston's engineering school, and also supports the existence of Firman, and it cites it's sources. I'd say that works out to keep as deleting would involve making our own decisions based on opinion, as opposed to trusting the sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is the single source I already cited above (Dictionary of Scientific Biography, I:5), but for the utter lack of any mention of Armen Firman in Lynn White and Elias Terias there is sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of Lienhard's account which does not even feature any inline citations. And as long as we cannot substantiate whether "Armen Firman" is the latinized version of Abbas Ibn Firnas or not I fail to see how we are entitled to make a redirect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (undent) The only justification needed for a redirect is utility, that is if it would help readers find the content they are looking for, but I'm afraid you've missed my point. I don't think there is enough evidence to decide that Firman didn't exist, and I think his article should be kept. I have edited the article to try and reflect that there is some question as to if they are the same person or not, but without definitive proof either way, the article should be kept. Deciding for ourselves that one source is right and another is wrong is original research, we should let the sources speak for themselves and let the reader decide. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to hear the opinion of others. Deciding that all "sources" are equally valid is just as much POV. Again, one Armen Firman is not in the least mentioned in the two scholarly works which refer exhaustively to Abbas' flight. All we have now Lienhard's unreferenced claim that there was a Armen Firman which we have strong reason to believe is just the latinized name of Abbas Ibn Firnas, nothing else. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked it: No entry on Armen Firman in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, not the faintest hint of a flight attempt with a cloak. In the article on Abbas Ibn Firnas, the gliding attempt is mentioned, but here again no mention of Armen Firman. It is now 3:1 against the existence of Armen Firman, with the three being much more reliable and reputed references . How many more sources do we need to put Mr. Armen Firman to rest? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping some other users would have commented by now, as you and I seem to be at an impasse, but I feel I must point out a serious flaw in your logic. You say that the sources are against the existence of Firman because they don't mention him. If I write an article about my Toyota, does that mean I am denying the existence of Honda? It's always difficult to "prove a negative" for exactly this reason. Not mentioning something is not the same as refuting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the problem of making a case against something ex silentio. That's why I wrote to Mr. Lienhard himself, the main source cited, and that's what he today amended in response to my inquiry:

''On July 8, 2009, I received an email from a Wikipedia editor/contributor who raised the question as to whether Ibn Firnas and Armen Firman were two different people. The historical record is very thin and it contains no primary source material mentioning Firman. The contributor points to the possibility that Firnas' name along with the date and details of his flight, may have been confused in secondary writings.''

In other words, he, too, knows of no primary sources which prove Armen Firman's existence. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I gotta hand it to you for getting it right "from the horse's mouth" like that, however I'm not sure it solves our problem here. There's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" floating around. I still think it would be better to keep or merge the article and make it clear that there is some doubt as to whether these were two separate individuals. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. As long as we cannot establish beyond doubt that Armen Firman is merely the latinized version of Abbas Ibn Firnas, there is still a chance, however small, that Armen Firman was a different person. On the other side, I feel that the evidence ex silentio is strong enough that an article of its own cannot be longer maintained for Armen Firman. That is simply a very sensitive issue, to keep an entry on what probably did not exist, just the kind of criticism you hear from Wikipedia's detractors. So what do you think of a merge? We create at the bottom of Abbas Ibn Firnas a new section where we refer to Armen's alleged jump, but also summarize the cons against Armen Firman's existence in no unequal terms. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (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.