Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazub


 * 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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a keep close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hazub

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dubious existence. This article has been tagged as a hoax since August 14, 2009. I have been unable to find anything to confirm this prince's existence; however, this may be because this prince lived in the tenth century. A Google Books search returns one result, but it's a "[n]o preview available" result, so this cannot be used to verify the prince's existence. The two external links/references in the article are not reliable sources, so they cannot be used. If one reliable source is found to prove that this is not a hoax, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The onus is on the article to establish its accuracy; it hasn't (at this stage) done so. As above, I'll change to "keep" if sources can be found.  (I wouldn't know where to start researching something like this.)  It probably doesn't help that it's written in a semi-liturgical style.  A cleanup to lay English might be useful.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per verification of existence below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - but it would be an idea to confrim this with a copy of Seder Olam Zutta. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: if we do no longer doubt the subject's existence, is he therefore automatically notable? (And I've cleaned up the article some.) Chesdovi, do you have an argument to offer for your keep-vote? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can prove his existence, this article should be kept. Princes are automatically notable. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, you can withdraw your AfD on the basis of this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia--but I'm going to whittle the article to one sentence. I guess there might be a way to verify the genealogy, indirectly, but all the rest came from some angelfire website, now dead, put in there by the original writer, now blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * AfD withdrawn It has been confirmed that Hazub exists. By the way, old versions of the Angelfire website can be accessed via Archive.org; see here. I don't know if that will help verify the genealogy because the website doesn't really discuss Hazub in relation with his family members. Cunard (talk) 03:20, 24 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.