Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaal Pir Baba

:{{la|Shaal Pir Baba}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaal_Pir_Baba Stats])

:({{Find sources|Shaal Pir Baba}})

The citation tag has been on this article for almost a year, yet the only "sources" provided are references to a book or periodical (I'm not sure which) that's over a hundred years old and nowhere to be found. Given the user-made family tree and photograph, I believe this article is the result of original research by an editor who is no longer active and thus cannot prove the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

::Must be kept.Notability is already established.Msoamu (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

:::Could you clarify? The notability is only supported are from century-old sources which may or may not even exist. Balochistan is a mountainous, impoverished region. While I am sure they must have at least one newspaper, there is no way to verify if that newspaper even exists; the article, as it stands now, is entirely original research by the creator. Hence my request for clarification on how exactly notability has been established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacation9 00:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep The Baluchistan District Gazetteer, published by the Bombay Education Society's Press in 1907 certainly exists, as it has been digitized by Google. Perhaps MezzoMezzo would like to explain why the claim that "there is no way to verify if that newspaper even exists" was made? By the way, a gazetteer is not a newspaper, but is more analogous to an encyclopedia. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia:Five pillars, which describes the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates, says explicitly that we include features of gazeteers. Accordingly, the claim that the article is based on original research is erroneous. That is not to say that the article doesn't need work. It does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:::Answer This [http://books.google.com.sa/books?id=Jr21AAAAIAAJ&q=Khwaja+Wali+Kirani&dq=Khwaja+Wali+Kirani&ei=mT2mSbjxIIHqkwSBnbyKDg&pgis=1&redir_esc=y link] to the gazeteer appears to contain references to the individual now; when I originally inspected it at the time of nomination, I don't remember anything showing, even the image of the cover now available. Given the tone of the article, I assumed this was simply a fan page, though between now and the time when I originally nominated this, it was pointed out to me on two occasions that I did not properly inspect the guidelines for AfD. If you feel strongly that it should be kept (I would disregard Msoamu's comment above as it's unsubstantial), then I will gladly retract the nomination and apologize for my own misunderstanding. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

::::I don't feel strongly as I have no expertise, and am unsure if the level of coverage arises to notability. I just can't support deletion when at least one source is verified and several others are listed. So, the decision about whether to withdraw or let the debate run its course is up to you. Thanks for taking my comment seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::No problem, I was somewhat embarrassed when it was pointed out to me (after I nominated a few other articles along with this one) that I hadn't read some key points in the policy. Well, I'm not an expert in this subject at all; I think I'd just leave it with my nomination and your comments to keep it, and wait for more comments (if we could have a subject matter expert on South Asian religious figures, it could possibly finish the issue). Although as it stands right now, it might end up with no consensus - at which point I wouldn't plan on nominating it a second time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2013 (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.