Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jondab-e-asadi

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 no consensus. After being relisted twice, there's no consensus towards deletion or keeping the article.

I would like to note that DGG's comment is spot on. Just because an article has been around since '07 and hasn't had any significant work done, there are sources and there is literature out there, however, we need to reach out to our bilingual editors to assist in translation and sourcing. I suggest reaching out to the appropriate projects for tagging and assistance. (

non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Jondab-e-asadi

)

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

Basically original research and my searches (with both names) found nothing good to suggest improvement and better understanding (the two listed sources are not enough to save it nor are significant). SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think we should delete articles about historical personages such as Companions of the Prophet without a careful check in printed sources under all possible forms of the name (the article itself give 2 different transliterations) . What is recounted here is obviously legend and presented as such, but the person may nonetheless be notable. I am not qualified to do a proper search, which would need to be done in Arabic, not just transliteration, but I easily found [1] in whats eems to be a reliable modern academic book. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I understand DGG's persuasive argument, but the article has been here since 2007, and no work to add RS has really been done in all that time. I agree, I'm not qualified to search in Arabic, but searches in English do not show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

Talk 09:01, 30 August 2015 (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.