Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. I would have !voted "strong delete" myself, but its clear there is no consensus in this AfD as-is. Tan ǀ 39 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pirani Ameena Begum

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum
• Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum (2nd nomination)

Pirani Ameena Begum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion in February and the result of that discussion was keep, but on the understanding that this would allow a newbie editor to edit the article and add sources to clarify subject and establish notability. Almost 6 months later, this has not happened. The main claims for notability of the subject of this article are 1/ One of her uncles from her father's side was the historically well-known politician called "Judge Baker"; 2/ the wife of Sufi Master Hazrat Inayat Khan; 3/ she was the mother of his four children: Noor-un-Nisa (1913), Vilayat (1916), Hidayat (1917) and Khair-un-Nisa (1919); 4/ she was one of the first female Sufi Shaikh - Pirani on the West and 5/ published a collection of 101 Poems called "A Rosary of one hundred and one beads". Some of those poems were lost in the war of 1940, but a few have been preserved. Although her uncle, husband, and several of her children are notable persons, notability is not inherited. The claim that she was "one of the first female Sufi Shaikh" (note that apparently she was not the first) is still unsourced. The poems that she wrote were mostly destroyed and only a few apparently got published, but in a small magazine called Caravanseari and there is no ecidence that they made any impact at all. The article contains several references. However, upon closer examination they all seem to deal with either her husband Inayat Khan or her daughter, Noor-un-nisa Inayat Khan. In all, I don't think that this establish any notability of the subject of this article and hence I re-propose it for deletion. Crusio (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is actually an outstanding article which provides encyclopedic material on a subject from outside of anglocentric culture. With 5 unimpeachable references and several strong assertions of notability as delineated in the nomination above. True, the article could use some attention, and should be filled-out a little and better wikified. Inline citations from the provided sources would be an excellent improvement. There is no deadline, so we should not cull the article just because it is not ready for GA/FA at this point. (Disclosure: I was the closing admin of the first AFD, and i have subsequently contributed to this article.) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I don't think there are any "strong assertions of notability". Being the niece, wife or sister of notable persons does not make oneself notable. Being the first female Sufi Shaikh would perhaps be notable, but she wasn't that either. That just leaves a few poems that did not get any overage besides the original publication. As for the unimpeachable references, they are about different persons. And as for "deadlines", I have waited 6 monhts for improvements before nominating this again, no sources have been forthcoming in that half year. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Dear Jerry, please have a look on an article again after new corrections. I'm afraid this is the case, based on the personal dislike of an AfD nominator Crusio, who second time uses principles of Wikipedia like notability, verifiability, merge, citation, sometimes all of them to provoke article deletion. Proof of this personal or family or religious dislike is that Crusio now started to use notability tag in articles about other Hazrat Inayat Khan family members. [[1]] We need advice from Wikipedia administrators, what to do with this situation?

• Keep There are no ref tags, so it is difficult to argue whether certain things in the article are "unsourced" without a copy of the references. Titles, too, can be misleading. Who knows? Maybe a chapter of the books "about" her daughter or her husband are devoted to Pirani Ameena Begum.

I would like to see more conclusive evidence about these references before considering whether to delete this article. I currently agree with Jerry that this provides valuable encyclopedic material.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• "maybe", "who knows"? Is that a way to source an encyclopedia? --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Additional information. On the website of the Sufi movement, her husband's comments on his wife can be found here. It seems evident that he was lauding her support as a loving wife, nothing less and nothing more. No bio is provided on the website of the International Sufi Movement, she is only mentioned as the mother of Pir-o-Murshid Hidayat. Here is an obituary on another Sufi site. The poems in Caravanserai are available online here, note that not even on this website did anyone bother to post a comment. She is not included in this list of famous Sufis. These are the most interesting links that I found in this Google search (47 hits total without using "", so that several non-pertinent sites also popped up. Also note that among these 47 hits are several mirrors of the Wikipedia article). In all, not a hint that Begum was more than a loving housewife and mother. --Crusio (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Crusio (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The article on Inayat Khan does not link here and only mentions Begum as Khan's wife. I have posted a note on the talk page of that article so that any editors interested in Khan can participate in the present debate. Given the sparse discussion up till now, I suggest that this AfD proposal should be relisted to generate more debate. I am not sure whether I can do that (being the nominator), so I will not do this for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• merge with the Inayat Khan article might be the best solution if there is insufficient to establish notability for her own article. The claim is that "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." That would perhaps justify a merge; although, of course, that is an unsourced statement in the Pirani Ameena Begum article. But it might be enough to justify merging with the Inayat Khan article until there is enough to justify a separate article for her. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I just want add that this link [2] indicates her importance in Inayat Khan's life, but not her own notability; indicating that a merge could be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The page quotes her husband as praising her for being a fine wife and mother. But, as far as I understand it, it doesn't even start to say that she contributed to her husband's work. -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• • • • Here's another link from the same site, with a little more.John Z (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally closed this debate as no consensus, but Crusio commented that I should have relisted it instead. As it was fairly marginal, I have done that. My closure follows:

The result was No consensus. Length of time is not a deletion reason (WP:NOEFFORT), but notability is still seemingly under debate. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on her publications (i). It would seem that she has had one essay and three pages of poetry published. I thought I'd investigate, and started with what's described as Poems from Thy Rosary of a Hundred Beads, a collection of poems written by 'Sharda, Pirani Ameena Begum Ora-Ray Inayat Khan'. "Caravanseari" magazine (Canada) November 1988 pp.. 31-34. Canada is unusually big for a "place of publication", but it's one with historical and linguistic links to Britain and I therefore looked up the periodical Caravanseari (sic) at the convenient Copac. Nothing. I then tried the much likelier periodical Caravanserai at Copac. Nothing. I then looked up Caravanseari (sic) at WorldCat. Nothing. Finally, I tried Caravanserai at WorldCat, and found one periodical of that title that was published in Barcelona. (I should point out to our younger readers that Canada, although large, does not encompass Barcelona.) I have no reason to think that a Canadian Caravanseari/Caravanserai exists. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there is this web page, which claims to present what was printed in this journal that no library bothers to shelve. Now, I'm no poet or literary critic, but it seems to me that a charitable way to describe these poems would be to say that they're insubstantial. (I'm trying not to use terms such as "doggerel" and "Hallmark".) Of course my opinion means squat; what would matter is the comment of any respected literary critic. Has any made any comment? -- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment on her publications (ii). The other publication is in "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915. WorldCat lists The Sufi published in Southampton from 1933; The Sufi Quarterly published in Geneva from circa 1925, and, er, nothing else that looks similar. So I have no reason to think that this publication exists either. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I wouldnt rely too much on WorldCat for material like this as an indication that there was not an earlier publication by that title. But I agree there is no positive evidence of importance. DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This confirms that "The Sufi" existed, starting in 1915, and as other articles here state, that she was the half-sister of Pierre Bernard (yogi).John Z (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's what it says: Hazrat Inayat Khan's magazine, 'The Sufi', started in London (de J-K 138). So yes, such a magazine existed. It was run by PAB's husband. Right, so she published one essay in a magazine that was published by her husband and that's so obscure that it's not listed in WorldCat, and posthumously published several verses that are said to have appeared in a magazine that's also so obscure that it's not listed by WorldCat, though it does reappear within somebody's blog. Er ... does she have any other notability? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The 1993 Rawlinson article found above by User:John Z looks like a good source on who was who in the Western Sufi movement. This article observes that a number of women assumed prominent roles in the Western movement. It discusses the careers of six women who were named as Sufi teachers, but gives only a passing mention to Pirani Ameena Begum, who is not identified as a teacher. Here are the two passages that mention her at all:

1. "Inayat Khan stayed in Britain for eight years. In 1913, he married Ora Baker, an American who was the half-sister of Pierre Bernard/Oom the Omnipotent and also distantly related to Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science; she was henceforth known as Amina Begum Inayat Khan."
2. "..Sufi Order Pir Vilayat Khan (Hazrat Inayat Khan's son but his mother was American and he is completely Western apart from his father's nationality."

I suggest that the Rawlinson article is good enough be used as a reference in the other WP articles on Western Sufis, whenever that person is named by Rawlinson. However Piri Ameena Begum doesn't show up as a notable figure (except as the mother or wife of notable figures) in the Western Sufi movement, in Rawlinson's account. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• delete Notability is not inherited. Appears to lack reefs to show she was notable in her own right. Edison (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person despite the article still need a lot of work--Puttyschool (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If you have to put in a huge ammount of effort to demonstrate lack of notability; then its probably worth the benefit of the doubt. What's going on here is an extrapolation of logic that results in illogical argumentation. "This book lists notable people, this book does not list the subject of this article, therefore this subject is not notable." That is seriously flawed logic. There is no benefit to listing all of the books that do not demonstrate notability for a subject in it's AfD, because we could do that with most any article. "Here is a reputable book about sports. It does not talk about shinty, therefore shinty is not notable." "Here is a reputable book about people from Illinois. It does not list Abe Lincoln. Therefore Abe Lincoln is not notable." Do you see how that does not work? Using that logic I could prove that Oprah, P'diddy, Madonna, Pee Wee Herman, George Bush, Queen Victoria, Tutankhamen and Malcolm X are all not notable. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned Rawlinson's article (found by John Z) since it was the best treatment I myself have seen of the Western Sufi movement. When we do find a good quality source, it's completely kosher to ask whether, in the view of that source, this was a notable person or not. The quality of the sources found in this second AfD seems to be markedly better than what was known in the first AfD. Nothing prevents you from looking for sources that might tip the balance in the other direction. Sources that might exist, but nobody can find, are not very persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "If you have to put in a huge amount of effort to demonstrate lack of notability".... Actually, it is completely the other way around. Nobody has demonstrated any notability yet. The "Keep" votes here just assert "notable person", "very encyclopedic article" and such. As has been shown above, the "unimpeachable references" in the article do not establish notability for this person at all. No other sources can be found, despite many efforts shown by several people here (all of them "delete" votes, I note). More sources may exist. And one of those emails that I get every day promising me 10.5 million dollars if I just help somebody move money into my bank account may be true, too. If you have to put in an enormous effort to demonstrate notability, but despite that don't come up with anything, perhaps that actually means there is no notability.... --Crusio (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think one gets somewhat better results with "Ora Ray Baker" like [3], may do more serious searching again later if there's time. The recent biography of the daughter listed in the references quite probably is a good source for the mother. The article presently says "about Begum 4-46 pp", which I assume was put there in good faith; anywhere near that much would support an article. This isn't surprising, as the relation to half-brother Pierre Bernard and the (questioned by some sources) relation to Mary Baker Eddy is of interest too. Unfortunately none of it is online, so library research is essential for this one.John Z (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If a biography spends forty pages on and off about the biographee's mother, how does this show that the mother was notable? Or what do you suppose is Begum/Baker's notability? -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
    • By the GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Wikipedia notability doesn't primarily mean that any particular editor thinks the topic is worthy or interesting enough to cover substantially, it means that someone else has thought so and published. Substantial coverage is a reasonable assumption, in light of the claim in the article, and the fact that this is just the kind of thing that a careful scholarly biography, which on all accounts it is, would do.John Z (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I should have italicized the "on and off" above. It doesn't seem that anybody participating here has seen this biography. (Certainly I haven't.) The article says that the book is "about Begum 4-46 pp"; this is curiously unidiomatic and to me looks like the kind of thing typed by somebody who's nodding off at the keyboard. I wonder why we're taking it so seriously: for all we know it could be a typo for "pp 4–6" or whatever, but we're choosing to take it seriously. My own guess, no more valuable than anybody else's, is that it could mean "pp 4–46 passim". That's not unusual for a biography, and if we take it as evidence that a published writer has found the biographee's mother worthy or interesting enough to cover substantially, and if this in turn is taken to mean that the mother is notable, this would mean that the mothers of (wild guess) a quarter of the people who have sizable biographies thereby become encyclopedic. Does this not trouble you? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No, not at all. Having a book length biography is a criterion met by a tiny fraction of biographies here. And several members of this woman's family have had multiple biographies, very rare. She is related to notable people, notable in different ways and in particular connecting different religions - Sufism, American mysticism , and perhaps Christian Science, so research and exposition on this would be expected in a scholarly biography of the daughter. Ordinarily I would be amenable to merging and redirecting -which is after all what most of the sources (biographies of relatives) do, and would take care of almost all the cases which trouble you, but if there are too many notable relatives, which one should one merge with? I agree that there is some stretching here, because no one now editing has seen this (or other relevant books), but if it / they have a reasonable amount of coverage, I think we should keep this as a separate article, and should do so in similar cases. John Z (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

---

[break for ease of editing]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What, again? And where is thoroughness lacking? -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly what is wrong with this article, is it the least ranked from the 2,500,000 articles--Puttyschool (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That has been explained at length above. Whether or not this article is "ranked" (?) highly or not is not the question here. On what is your keep vote based? --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment "explained at length above", According to what I understood from "above", average was keep--Puttyschool (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Keep--Puttyschool (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I think that the fact that she came from a Christian American background and married an Islamic religious figure adds interest to the other points about her family and her poetry. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There must be hundreds of thousands of interreligious marriages, probably eveb millions. So how does this add to Begum's notability? --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment During the period (1892, 1949)! And still remembered!.--Puttyschool (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are right, this was late 19th century, 1200 years after the establishment of Islam. "Hundreds of thousands" must be a ridiculously low estimate, especially given that there were always large populations of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, etc living in Muslim-dominated areas, there must have been many millions over the years. --Crusio (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Technology is what break culture boundaries, but in the 19th century!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttyschool (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• What on Earth do you mean with that?? Read up on your history, admixture between different populations with different religions has been going on for millenia, there's nothing new in that. There must have been litertally millions of couples like Begum and Inayat Khan before them. Granada had a muslim ruler and Jewish and Christian ministers (well, until the Castillians conquered them, of course). --Crusio (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Even if we assumed million like "Pirani Ameena Begum" and "Inayat Khan", still both are known out of the million, this enforce keeping on the article--Puttyschool (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not Inayat Khan is known isn't an issue. Whether Begum is known is an issue. It's claimed that she gets a few pages in each of a number of books about other members of her family (similarly to the obscurer members of, say, the Bush dynasty), and it's also claimed that she gets a whopping forty-two pages of a book about her daughter. The latter claim is made in the form "about Begum 4-46 pp", and first introduced in this edit by User:Sergey Moskalev. I'd like to know more about it -- what do all those pages say about her? should "passim" be added? is it a mere typo? -- but unfortunately this is not the kind of book that's stocked by any library I frequent, and the content isn't available at Google books. Sergey Moskalev hasn't contributed since 20 July, but perhaps he'd come back to answer questions. I have just now emailed him to ask him to describe what the book says. -- Hoary 00:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the history of Spain, you will know the differences.--Puttyschool (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is established by multiple, reliable, independent third-party sources. This person seems to have a number of books about her from a glance at the references section, they just need to be converted into inline citations. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your comment goes to show something about the value of the "glance" you gave the reference section, and maybe of glances in general. This article lists six sources; it is obvious that not a single one of them is a book about this person (and no editor has previously claimed otherwise). -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this huge discussion above is itself a proof that this material is valuable. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the fact that there's a lengthy argument between viewpoints [X] and [not-X] goes to show that [not-X] is correct? That would seem extraordinary. Or are you saying that assertions of insignificance are self-defeating? That would have a certain plausibility to it, but it's belied by the facts. Consider for example AfD/Sollog (4th nomination) and its predecessors, resulting in (well-deserved) deletion. And there are others, perhaps most drearily a this seemingly interminable series. ¶ But more importantly, your response is very disappointing. I took the trouble to email you, knowing very well that you would staunchly defend the article but hoping that you would do so in a persuasive and informative way, one that might lead me to change my own view and anyway improve the quality of the discussion. Specifically, it was you who added a reference to a book that, you wrote, uninterruptedly devotes over forty pages to Begum. Please either confirm that this is no mistake, or correct it (more detailed pagination within those 42, addition of passim, etc). If it is true, please describe the content in at least a bit more detail. (What is about this woman that took 42 pages to describe -- only that she was a good wife, good mother, and unpublished poetaster?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC); revised 04:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Please check your personal e-mail I answer on your letter to me. All data about Bugum in book "Spy Princess: The Life of Noor Inayat Khan" by Shrabani Basu, M. R. D. Foot, Pir Zia Inayat-Khan in Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0930872789/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=Begum&go.x=14&go.y=12 you may check all citations. Article about Pirani Amina Begum is for English Wikipedia, so I don't put on it Dutch, Italian, German, Norway etc references. What do you think is it necessary to add them also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey Moskalev (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No, these aren't necessary, and I'm surprised if I've ever given the impression that I thought that they were. However, if there is a solid reference in some other language, by all means feel free to add it. ¶ I never thought of looking inside the book at Amazon. Thank you for the link. Rather than saying she's on pp. 2–46, it would be better to say that mentions of her are on pp. 4–10 passim, 19–27 passim, 31, 39–47 passim, 119, 189–103 passim, and 205. She's mentioned by name on 28 pages. Here, from p.24, is an example that's both typical and telling: Goldberg was a rank outsider in this circle. Noor's mother, Amina Begum, objected to her relationship with him, as did her brothers and uncles. It's typical in that it says nothing whatever to help establish Begum's notability. It's telling in that it shows how, after twenty or so pages (it's unfair to assume that the main text starts on p.1), Amina [sic] Begum has had such an insubstantial presence in the book that the author thinks it's necessary to remind the reader that "Amina Begum" is the biographee's mother. ¶ I appreciate your polite and informative email, but really, this Amazon URL clinches it: the material about Begum in this one book appears to total no more than one page, and does not suggest that Shrabani Basu sees the biographee's mother as notable. -- Hoary (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Amazon, of course! I looked up "Women of Sufism: A Hidden Treasure" by Camille Adams Helminski. I do not get a single hit when searching for "Pirani", "Amina", "Ameena", or "Begum". There is a short chapter on Noor, in which it is mentioned that her mother was "Ora Ray Baker". That's the ONLY mention of Begum that I can find. There goes another "unimpeachable" reference, I think. --Crusio (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
          • See page 158. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I did, it tells about the last days of Noor/Nora Inayat Khan and that she got the George's Cross. There's not a mention of Begum or even the word "mother", as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this article has six references. The person is notable and she is mentioned in different and quite popular books. The fact that prof. Crusio still insists on deletion of this article probably shows his personal dislike of it, and that is not an impartial assessment of the situation Ivan Moskalev (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Ivan, I would appreciate if you could read AGF. The arguments of Sergey and yourself to keep this article are, like all other "keep arguments" given up till now, rather weak. The references are all about other persons. The reference just added to the article by Sergey is about Begum's daughter. The long discussion here is because people keep saying "notable" without giving good arguments, which then needs a lot of words from other people to show the shallowness of those arguments. Note by the way that I am not the only one who thinks this article should be deleted. As for your personal attack on me, why would I have anything against Begum? I am not proposing any articles of her family members for deletion, for example. I propose this article for deletion because it lacks encyclopedic notability. Being mentioned in books about others is just not enough. Having said all this, I expect by now that the article will be kept. Despite the fact that AfD is not a vote most people closing an AfD just count heads. --Crusio (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree their some kind of Personal POV about this AFD, About notability she is notable--Puttyschool (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Response My "POV" is that I want an article about a clearly non-notable person deleted. If you feel that I am doing something untoward, please feel free to put in a complaint. --Crusio (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Response My "POV" she is a notable person, most of the world know about her--Puttyschool (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's great. Please give me your sources and I'll immediately withdraw my deletion nomination. --Crusio (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I see, it is your deletion nomination, I can’t image that you did not hear about Al-Azhar_University publishing--Puttyschool (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, perhaps it is because I did not yet have my morning coffee and am not awake yet, but I fail to see what you are trying to say. I never heard about that publisher, but what is the connection here? --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you need more than a single cup of coffee, you don’t know anything about Islam or Sufism, even you don’t hear About Al-Azhar_University, and you are trying to judge this article!!!.--Puttyschool (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• As Hoary said earlier, I can read and I can think a little. You seem to need some coffee, too. I answered "no" to your question whether I know "Al-Azhar_University publishing", I did not say anything about the university itself. I have googled the university together with the different versions of Begum's name and come up with squat. Can you please explain what this university has to do with this whole discussion? Earlier you said that "most of the world know about her". Apparently this is a well-kept secret (is this a conspiracy?), as none of you people arguing so vehemently that this person is notable is apparently able to come up with any reference showing that. Concerning your comment that people not knowing Sufism or Islam well are trying to judge this article: in general an encyclopedia's goal is to help inform people that do not know much about a certain subject. Articles therefore have to be written in such a way that they explain their subject to the novice and show why this subject is worthy of this novice's attention. --Crusio (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please revise your comments you said "I never heard about that publisher" this is something other than coffee!
  "As Hoary said earlier" AND according to the conspiracy theories taking in consideration your long history with this AFD!!!?
  "encyclopedia's goal is to help inform people that do not know much about a certain subject..." this does not mean they MUST know what you ONLY know, or what you WANT them to know.
  The most interesting thing is you comment about "judging what you don’t know"--Puttyschool (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but even after multiple cups of coffee, I still seem to fail to understand what you are talking about. It frankly sounds rather incoherent to me, I apologize for being dense. In any case, things are simple: One good source showing notability for Begum is enough and we can be done here. --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly I don’t know exactly what you are talking about, most of your comments are not related to the article itself, now what I can CLEARLY see is that “you are not familiar with the subject” and it is a matter of “personal dislike” as commented above, don’t you see the length of references listed in the article are longer than article itself!.--Puttyschool (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Puttyschool, let's not talk about Crusio; let's instead talk about Pirani Ameena Begum. The article on her indeed has a pile of notes and sources. However, their sheer number is insignificant. The question is rather of what they say. Begum was a good wife, a good mother, an early female western Sufi, the author of a single article published in an obscure journal put out by her husband, the author of verses a few of which have survived and were published in an obscure journal after her death. Two questions: (i) Is this all? (ii) Is this notability? (Incidentally, yes, I am not familiar with the subject; you are free to make me familiar with her. And I have no personal dislike or like of her whatever.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• “Ameena Arabic: أمينة” Purely Islamic Arabic Name for a western women!!!
  “Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Shaikh ....”!!!
  “....Ameena Begum's help he would never have been able to bring the "Sufi Message" to the "Western world"” !!!
  “Poems”!!!
  Sure all four points can establish notability also can be a cause for “personal dislike” as I pointed above--Puttyschool (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[bouncing some way leftward] The poems seem negligible: they weren't published; only a few survived her; these were published in a very obscure journal and republished on the web (within a single compact web page), to what seems to be a universal critical indifference. As for the rest, there could be something to them (though her husband's remark, while surely sincere, does not seem different from many husbands' remarks), but if so then why wouldn't she appear in Helminsky's Women of Sufism? (Or is Crusio wrong about this?) -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

During this period almost all Muslims were against publishing or even saying their wife names, may be this was the reason, another thing is "Camille Adams Helminski" is the only one who can decide, or is she the only reference while some of her edits lack a reference.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Btw I mean by references things like “translating portion of the Qur'an without approving the translation from Al-Azhar" any way I removed it.--Puttyschool (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't suppose she would be. But can you nominate any source that (a) provides more than the briefest of mentions and (b) isn't primarily about one or more other members of Begum's family? -- Hoary (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Western Sufi Shaikh are a small group compared to the total number of Muslims, another I’m not specialized in "Sufi Shaikh" studies; but I think someone will find the reference soon. About notability, she is a notable person, passed out before WikipediA notability guidelines.--Puttyschool (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ivan, I'm surprised to note that this was only your tenth (undeleted) edit to en:WP. Care to comment on this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Hoary, I'am surprised to see that a person, who doesn't specialise in religeous studies judges the notability of an article about religion. I noticed that you specialize on photography, and in my opinion a Lithuanian photographer isn't very notable, links to his works are not very precise and books have no ISBN and it's impossible to find them in libraries, but still, the information can be useful and interesting for people, who specialize or take interest in photography. The situation with Begum is the same, because the information may be interesting for people, who take interest in the Western Sufism of XX century. Please answer, do you consider yourself a specialist in comparative religious studies? Ivan Moskalev (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, I haven't the slightest knowledge of comparative (or other) religious studies, or Sufism. (And I don't mind your asking me this at all.) However, I think I am able to read and think a little. I've just been to Category:Universal Sufism to see how the other articles there compare. The first item I clicked on was Hidayat Inayat Khan. The material about Sufism in the article is very terse and it's unreferenced; however, it's claimed that he has published about Sufism and has produced a substantial musical oeuvre. Shaikh-ul-Mashaik Pyaromir Maheboob Khan is less obviously convincing, but clearly there's something here too: he published, and material about him was published. ¶ My ignorance of religion is ecumenical: I don't know anything about, say, Baptism either. But in Category:Baptist writers I click on Michael Frost (confusing him for a moment with David Frost) and discover that he has published several books and is an invited speaker here and there: the sourcing for some of this is unsatisfactory, but the assertion of notability is there. Or again, Category:Russian Taoists: Alex Anatole "is now the head priest and president of the Center of Traditional Taoist Studies located in Weston, Massachusetts"; it's not clear how important this Center (which lacks an article) is, but Anatole too is not just described as somebody's son and father and the author of verse. ¶ I'm happy to discuss Lithuanian photographers: I know sadly little and it's very likely that you know more. Do come chez Hoary and let's discuss them there over a couple of glasses of Leffe. -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am getting a bit tired of those personal attacks above. I don't care one way or the other about Begum, my only concern is that this is an article about a person who misses notability completely. If personal attacks are the only arguments for keeping this article that you guys (Puttyschool and Yvan Moskalev) can come up with, then I think the case for this AfD is clear. Given the total lack of good faith here, I don't intend to participate much in this discussion any more, but I implore the closing admin to read through all of the arguments here and not just count heads. --Crusio (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• To Hoary In your comment you wrote: "Comment on her publications (ii). The other publication is in "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915. WorldCat lists The Sufi published in Southampton from 1933; The Sufi Quarterly published in Geneva from circa 1925, and, er, nothing else that looks similar. So I have no reason to think that this publication exists either". Before you tell that you use Copac in this case - "but it's one with historical and linguistic links to Britain and I therefore looked up the periodical Caravanseari (sic) at the convenient Copac". So we come back to "Sufi" magazine in Copac and what we see - http://copac.ac.uk/wzgw?id=080823577f8b85ae3fd161c539d8a20486ffba&f=u&rsn=2&rn=11 Location details: British Library. Care to comment on this? Sergey Moskalev (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes: good sleuthing, and my opinion of WorldCat has dropped a notch. So we now know that Begum was not only wife, mother, and niece of people, but also a one-time contributor to her husband's magazine, which can be found in a library. Good, good. I can't see how the information on her satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people), however. -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This article already satisfied the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) after the first AfD in February 2008, so Wikipedia administrators decided to keep it! It is pity that people should spend their own time for discussions like this (again). Sergey Moskalev (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • • Dear Sergey, please read WP:Guide to deletion, under point 4 is described what one should do if one disagrees with a "keep" decision. This is exactly what I did. A generally accepted waiting period is one month, I gave it 6. I have seen AfD's go through 4 or even more cycles.... The current discussion has failed to render any evidence that Begum meets WP:BIO, so I think a second nomination was justified. --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
      • about satisfying the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) it satisfies, but what about POVs --Puttyschool (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry Puttyschool, but just saying it is so, doesn't make it so... We still don't have any sources confirming that the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) are met. And please stop these unwarranted accusations of POV pushing. Making a case that an article should be deleted, supported by rational, non-biased arguments, does not constitute a POV. --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Notability is not established according to your POV--Puttyschool (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Exactly, I agree! Notability is not established according to anybody's POV, it's established according to WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Also Notability is not established according to your Understanding of WP:BIO. --Puttyschool (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
                • Somebody will have to understand it... I guess that will have to be the closing admin. --Crusio (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting progression that the deletionist platform has evolved through in this discussion. First it was after the first AfD somebody was supposed to add sources, and after 6 months later it has not happened so delete. Then it was Okay, sources have been added, but the text of the article does not assert notability. Then it was okay, the article asserts notability, but notability is not inherited. Then it was okay, so it asserts uninherited notability, but the sources are unverifiable. Then it was okay, so you found the sources, but we found other sources which would have listed her if she was notable.... why all this effort to continually evolve the delete position until sucessful? Everything that was asked for has been provided. This really seems like a "delete for any reason, regardless of this discussion". We could prove she was both the pope and superwoman and that she invented the wheel, and I am certain that the other side would still say something like "but there have been alot of popes, and superheroes and inventors"... Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of summarizing this discussion. The way I see it, the argument was and has been all the time: there is no notability. "The other side" as you phrase it, continuously comes with new arguments supposed to show notability. Each time this has to be responded to. All that has been shown up till now is that this person existed and was a loving wife and mother, and apparently her husband doted on her. Please explain to me how that satisfies WP:BIO. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And hoary, you specifically cited the worldcat as some preeminent arbiter source, when you thought the provided reference was not in it (00:49, 13 August 2008). Then when it is pointed out to you that it is in there and you just missed it, you say "good sleuthing, and my opinion of WorldCat has dropped a notch" and then trivialize the reference. (14:29, 23 August 2008). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:42, 23 August 2008 (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.