Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynasty of Hasan Pasha


 * 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. MuZemike 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty of Hasan Pasha

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has previously been speedied. Some editors have expressed concern that its contents are unverified. Google is little help. Note that some related articles, such as Büyük Süleyman Pasha the Great, are written by the same user. Going to AfD for consensus. Melchoir (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources can be found. Eeekster (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This could be a valid topic; see this Google Books result. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The creator and sole maintainer of this page has clearly indicated a lack of interest in providing sources, attacks other editors (see Zibi Fer's talk), and continually ignores all requests to clean up or otherwise make his pages meet basic quality criteria. When edits to the article are reverted, he starts using the talk page as an impromptu second article. The supporting articles (on notable members of the dynasty) might eventually be useful if fixed by a competent editor, but without references supporting the importance of the whole dynasty, I can't even argue for this article on notability grounds.  ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This source, as well as the one found by Cunard, discusses the dynasty as a whole. There's some more coverage here. Content and behavioural issues should not be addressed by deletion of articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll grant, behavioral issues are not sufficient reason. I'm still not convinced that this is all that notable though.  From what I can tell from the limited Google preview, the dynasty was a relatively minor set of rulers for a limited region appointed by the Ottoman Empire.  They didn't rule the empire, they had limited autonomy, etc.  We rarely have articles on the family of a governor of a particular state or province from the 1800s, unless the family as a whole was notable.  If a particular member of the dynasty was notable, they should be included, but a page primarily devoted to the lineage is only justifiable if most of the line was notable; I see little evidence for that. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If they were rulers of this area then they were notable. The fact that we do not yet have articles on other regional governors is not a reason to delete this.filceolaire (talk) 22:59, 30 September 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.