Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umm Qirfa


 * 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 merge to Banu Fazara. (This is an amended closure after discussion on my talk page.)  Sandstein   14:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Umm Qirfa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails the WP:GNG. Most of the sources used in this article are WP:PRIMARY sources. Even the sources published by Oxford University Press and Routledge are translations of medieval Islamic texts. Philips doesn't look reliable. Mubarakpuri only gives the subject a passing mention. I asked for reliable secondary sources in September. VR talk 04:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. VR talk 04:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: Well, this story is surely notable, however poorly the article may currently be sourced. Scholar returns multiple scholarly discussions on the subject. I have no opinion on whether this should be covered as a separate article or merged with something else on the history and myths around the origins of Islam, but the topic is clearly of encyclopedic interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the google scholar results, only the first one appears to give depth of coverage required for GNG, the other ones appear to mention the subject only in passing.VR talk 21:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge the secondary-sourced bits to Banu Fazara. The only in-depth coverage I found that wasn't just repetition from ancient historiography was, which is a good source; and , which is middling. The nom is correct: most of this is WP:OR based on ancient historiography in translation—hardly a recipe for success. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw the second source you mentioned. Thanks for giving the archive link because google books doesn't have a preview of it. But yes, this source seems to only contain 4 sentences on the subject and merge to Banu Fazara seems like a good idea.VR talk 13:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * a) As of now my opinion is Keep or redirect plus merge in any case article content be accessible in future as and when some one comes with further set of sources.
 * b) Just a couple of weeks before nominee of this deletion proposal themselves suggested merger at the article talk page with statement "..This article also looks like WP:1E, meaning she is notable for her role in Expedition of Zayd ibn Harithah (Wadi al-Qura). If so, this article should be merged into that one.."
 * C) Many times close friends followers even prominent enemies of notable subject gain notability simply being close or prominent. Umm Qirfa gets notability just not being enemy of so and so but just being a female warrior of medieval times. Her being a warrior is no where contested, only the way she died has more than one version and one version largely being contested since modern times being not suitable to be narrative of modern times.
 * d) I do not want to insist on this question but simple question of logic, a secondary source written in 21 century will cease to be secondary in 32'nd century by lapse of time and it's translation in then popular language? Similarly I do not get how a scholar ( Al-Tabari ) who wrote exegesis  becomes primary just because he wrote in non–English language Arabic and wrote twelve centuries back. Secondary then is secondary today and translation of secondary then is secondary today.
 * I do have 2 more points but to keep concise as of now I leave it here. Pl. avoid pinging since this much participation from my side is more than enough as of now. Thanks.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, per significant coverage in scholarly  sources. "Umm Kirfa" is another popular spelling of the subject and brings enough result. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not a WP:Secondary source, which is a requirement for WP:GNG.VR talk 14:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge -- This appears to be one of the less attractive episodes of early Islam and as such is notable. Citation of primary sources, particularly ancient ones, ought to be acceptable, as these are the best source available.  Indeed a translation is in a sense a secondary source.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that the English translation of a WP:PRIMARY source is a WP:SECONDARY source is a strange one. If this idea was true, then it would imply that the English translation of the Bible is a secondary source, an implication contradicted by WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.VR talk 20:42, 27 November 2021 (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.