Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muezza (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unverified, original research. Out of the very few sentences in the article, only one has some references, that too has little to do with the subject. Previous AFD resulted in keep, but most of the keep voters assumed notability without any proof or references being provided. The article has remained unreferenced since June 2006. So, I nominate it for AFD, and vote for Delete as unreferenced original research. Ragib 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Whether considered religiously "official" or not, it's a notable bit of folklore. A Google news search shows this story has appeared in newspapers many times, including an Oakland Tribune story in 1908, all the way up to an Idaho Statesman story of March 2007. It's also appeared in many books. Notable folklore, keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We need verifiability for the information being cited. The article isn't. --Ragib 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly is the verifiability issue? I'm seeing dozens of newspaper and book sources. Pick whichever one you like best, add it to the article. Problem solved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now has 5 or so {{fact}} tags applied to about 6 sentences. That does ring a bell... --Ragib 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly is the verifiability issue? I'm seeing dozens of newspaper and book sources. Pick whichever one you like best, add it to the article. Problem solved. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If we're going to remove every bit of unofficial, substantiated religious folklore, why don't we start at the Virgin Mary? 90% of the things the Western world thinks it knows about her comes from folklore. Why isn't this going to cleanup instead? --Charlene 17:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:V triumphs "must keep folklore". --Ragib 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:V does not mean that things must be true; it means that things must be attributed. I see attribution. --Charlene 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It's folklore, but essentially, it's notable folklore. The important issue here, is, verifiability, not truth. --SunStar Net talk 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly ... the article as of now is totally unverifiable. --Ragib 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See [1], which shows me at least half a dozen recountings of this story. It may be fictional, but then, so might William Tell. If you're concerned about the contents, clean it up yourself, or tag it and let somebody else fix it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For shame that anyone would wish to see this deleted! Keep. Vranak
- No vote as can't be bothered to log in, but see the book Khan Al-Khalili, 1944, by Naguib Mafooz, for a detailed telling of just about everything in the article when Hamza recounts tales his mother told him. It's only available in old Arabic editions I think, but everybody is shouting for an early Arabic reference to the story. This is it. 212.11.177.224 13:38, 4 April 2007 (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.