- 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) NickGibson3900 Talk 01:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mir Shamsuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written, subject not mentioned in either source InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These individual sources establish at least some notability for the subject, even if not all three of them are reliable. My only suggesion is that the article be moved to Mir Shamsuddin Iraqi because that is what the sources seem to call him (the article itself puts "the Iraqi" after his name in bold in the first sentence of the article). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fourth of the four sources given by User:Traveling Man is an upload of a reliable source - the original is a chapter in this book published by Oxford University Press. In addition, this book, which also seems to be a reliable source, devotes most of a page to his career, and GBooks produces at least a few more passing mentions (as well as a number of false positives). Where one is looking at religious figures of about 500 years ago from outside Europe, there does tend to be quite a degree of systemic bias - with what look like two solid sources, I regard notability as established, though we could certainly do with more. PWilkinson (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.