Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum

Closing administrator's rationale
'''If you choose to add follow-on comments, please do so in a separate section below this. Do not interrupt my comments here.'''

Raw !vote analysis

 * Delete
 * 1) Crusio (6 edits)
 * 2) EdJohnston (2 edits)


 * Keep
 * 1) Sergey Moskalev (5 edits)
 * 2) Dtrebbien (5 edits)
 * 3) DGG (2 edits)
 * 4) 71.139.27.148


 * Non-participatory
 * 1) Nihonjoe (relisted discussion)
 * 2) SineBot (2 edits)

Arguments

 * Valid Delete Arguments
 * 1) references only tangently-related
 * 2) Notability is not inherited


 * Non-Valid Delete Arguments
 * 1) Prod was removed without reason
 * 2) only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable
 * 3) two problems: evidence of WP:BIAS, and the subject's spouse is clearly notable
 * 4) published a collection of poems, most of which are now lost
 * 5) if reliable secondary sources say the poems existed that's good enough
 * 6) No sources are provided... apparent lack of notability
 * 7) fails due diligence: nominator must search for sources and so state
 * 8) references seem to refer to her as a devoted wife
 * 9) only debunks existing references, does not say other references not available
 * 10) her published work has been destroyed
 * 11) sources provided for published works 1915 and 1988
 * 12)  "She's only the wife of ..."
 * 13) Spouses can play a central role in things


 * Valid Keep Arguments
 * 1) added references during AfD
 * 2) notable
 * 3) first female Sufi Sheikh
 * 4) rare in this Islamic culture for a woman to be a respected figure
 * 5) appears to have played a sufficiently important historic role
 * 6) cultural differences are part of the issue
 * 7) Creator was not given a chance to improve the article before deletion attempts


 * Non-Valid Keep Arguments
 * 1) article is rather long
 * 2) quote by spouse that he couldn't have done it without her

Summary
Although AfD is not a vote count, a sufficient number of responsible wikipedians opposed the deletion of the article at this time to warrant a keep closure. In addition the nominator did not appear to do his due diligence and actually look for sources. It is apparent from the improvements made during this AfD that more sources are available, and therefore it should be given more time for these sources to be added. Deletion efforts were premature. My decision is keep. JERRY talk contribs 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)