Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahir ibn Muslim

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir ibn Muslim

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual has received not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Tahir Ibn Muslim is mentioned in one source on the entire internet, and there are no other mentions of him in Google Scholar or any other historical documents. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The only reference is a book Mortel 1991 and i tried to look for the book and there is no proof it exists ,also the only thing that mentions the name of the subject on google is this article.Georgiamarlins (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No question there was a Tahir who was emir of Medina and that the Mortel source is RS, but I do have some concerns I have raised on the talk page. Srnec (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the source is a WP:RS which is about the only modern scholar I could find to deal with this particular subject. This does not mean that this person is non-existent or non-notable; being the hereditary ruler of one of the two holiest cities in Islam is clearly notable. Rather, it is a typical example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on the topic in Western sources. On Srnec's concerns, these are valid, but should be examined independently, to determine the 'truth' as far as we can, before any decision on keeping or deleting or renaming or merging this particular article. Constantine ✍ 11:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I know little of the subject, but take it that this was an autonomous state, of which the subject was the ruler. If English peers and MPs are generally notable, so should such a ruler. This is not an English subject, so that finding English language sources on it may be difficult. I expect that Mortel cites (or relies on) a variety of Arabic ones. It would certainly be better of Sharifs of Medina was an article not redlink, but the purpose of redlinks is to encourage article creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Georgiamarlins:, were you saying you couldn't find the source on the internet? It's available on the JSTOR one, and I can confirm it exists. I'm supporting the NPOL or NPOL-esk existence of this article , notwithstanding any critical issue that those with more expertise with this field of sources may discover. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nosebagbear, Greetings from Zimbabwe, thank you for the heads up, i however repeated the search on the JSTOR Here and i saw nothing again.I however suppose it might be because of my ___location, maybe my country is blocked from content on JSTOR. I can withdraw my statement but i won't change my vote because i have not accessed the source for now,judging with the votes many accessed it so the article will be kept.Thanks a lot.Blessed Sunday,cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - is what works for me, but I obviously can't speak for ___location-based issues Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep As the first Husaynid emir he is certainly historically significant. Refs on jstor here and here; other sources here, here and here (p.66). I have not searched for any Arabic sources yet. Mccapra (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2019 (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.