Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynasty of Hasan Pasha (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynasty of Hasan Pasha
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Three months after last AfD, this article is still unreferenced original research. No one but the original author has shown any interest in writing for it, and the author has steadfastly refused to provide *any* references, repeatedly defending it by explicitly describing it as original research. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubbify (is that an available option?) and keep. From the last AfD, it seems like this dynasty is notable, and I agree with Phil Bridger's comment there.  At the same time, while AfD isn't the right place to bring an article for cleanup issues (not saying the nom did), I'd hope that once an article's here on tenable grounds alternative outcomes are available.  To the extent they are, it the nom's concerns about the sourcing of this article are entirely valid and should be acted upon.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want to find some sources and stub it down, providing references for what you keep, be my guest. I'll withdraw the nom. But right now, it's a joke. I recently reverted some changes to the religious identity of the family, but it was out of a general tendency to reject unsourced factual changes; given the whole article is unsourced, I'm not sure why I bothered. Keeping a theoretically notable article around is okay if you expect it to be cleaned up over time. When no one has done anything to the article for three months, I consider it grounds for deletion (but not salting, if someone recreates it as a decent stub, that's fine). &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 16:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep This is a rather difficult search because of the numerous people by these names, Pasha being just a title. But the basic information here is documented in this academic book, and the dates match. Starting from this, there should be more.    DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources have been shown to exist in both the last AfD and this one. If anyone is unhappy that they are not cited in the article then the way to fix that is simply to edit the article, not to complain that someone else hasn't done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 29 December 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.