Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima de Madrid

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 delete. After an unusually thorough and scholarly discussion, consensus is that the existence of Fatima de Madrid is not verifiable enough to allow her inclusion in Wikipedia. This does not preclude the article's recreation after new reliable sources have been found about her.  Sandstein  12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatima de Madrid

Fatima de Madrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While this person seems like a very interesting article subject, I'm afraid I just can't find sources to attest that she verifiably existed. Everything seems to be derived from this source, which I would normally consider reliable were it not for the fact that it is the only source (the book cited on the Spanish version of the page doesn't appear to contain this person, and another site I found which says she appears in Enciclopedia Espasa isn't borne out by a search on said encyclopedia). At any rate, only one reliable source wouldn't attest notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• comment—ok, this guy: Said Al-Andalusi is said by these people to have written the Kitāb Tabaqāt al-umam, which is, according to this article on jstor (The Early Growth of the Secular Sciences in Andalusia. George F. Hourani. Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 143-156) to be the main source of information about her putative father, Maslama al-Majrīṭī (who is also mentioned in britannica online in the article on the culture of muslim spain; he at least shouldn't be redlinked in her article). I can't quite see how to get my hands on a copy of the Kitāb Tabaqāt al-umam right now, but i would bet good money that that's where those people with the spanish poster picked up whatever they're basing their claims on, assuming they're not completely delusional, since everyone seems to claim it's the main semicontemporary source for most good info about the father and his colleagues. also possibly useful might be the "biobibliography" of andalusi mathematicians by suter mentioned in both the google books link and the jstor article. i will try to look into this a little more, but i thought i'd throw this up here in case anyone knows more about it than i do.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

oh, p.s. the britannica discussion of the father doesn't actually mention that he worked on al-Khwārizmī's astronomical tables, as her article claims she and he did, although britannica does seem to claim to give a complete list of two works ascribed to him but of doubtful authorship and one more reliably attributed to him. on the other hand, the two of doubtful authorship, Ghāyat al-ḥakīm and Rutbat al-ḥakīm, may be compendia of some sort and so may have the al-Khwārizmī work in them. possibly one or the other of these books is a source. the father's evidently best known for updating the materia medica of dioscorides.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This source confirms the al-Khwarizmi thing –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

excellent work! at least that can go in the article on the father.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

another p.s.—Aciram has cleverly noted that her father wasn't redlinked at all, just misspelled: Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti. this article does also mention his astronomical work, but, frustratingly, doesn't give a source either. it claims that the two works of doubtful attribution i mentioned above are about chemistry. this makes me even more sure that it's Said Al-Andalusi that's the locus classicus of all this info, since none of Maslamah's actual astronomical work seems to survive.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)

Keep - The relevance seem established enough. She was a female astronomer in the 11th century, a Moslem female astronomer in the 11th century, a published 11th century astronomer, and a published female moslem astronomer in the 11th century. All of those factors alone are rare and would make here relevant, and now, they are even combined. The reservation seem to be the fact that the article relies on only one source. Correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia policy has no time limit when it comes to the completion of an article. The main thing is that the article has a reference. There should be more than one, but more sources will always eventually be added. There are many articles which relies on one single source.

I think that the tag should be altered. Instead of questioning the entire articles relevance because it depends on a single source, the tag should say that the article is a single source-article and needs another source. There are tags which marks an article as single-sourced: those articles are not questioned, but the tag informs everyone that the article needs additional sources, which would speed up the development ofn an article. I therefore propose that the tag of the article is changed to a more specified tag. --Aciram (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

comment—i think that it might be wise to be sure that she actually existed, let alone verifiably did anything like the article says that she did, before we go keeping it; i think Roscelese is quite right to be suspicious here. a poster produced a thousand years after her death is not a reliable source without some kind of independent confirmation. i doubt that they just made it up, but it must have come from somewhere, and it's possible that they've misunderstood or inflated something. it's very weird that it's so hard to find even a mention of her elsewhere. however, i do agree with you that if she existed, then she would be important. i don't think nominator is suggesting otherwise.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

query—Roscelese, it occurred to me just now that she might be mentioned in the enciclopedia only under her father's name. i don't seem to have access to that source right now. maybe take a look in his article and see if she's there? if anyone did make anything up here, i'd guess it's the "de madrid" part. that sounds like modern accretion to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Other searches still didn't turn up anything, but it might be that I just cannot search in that book (I thought it was that I could search but not view the results). Searching on her father's name + daughter (or fatima + astronoma) doesn't get anything. I think we can reasonably judge that even if she existed, the extreme difficulty in finding sources shows she is not notable enough for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can not understand the argument: "if she existed, the extreme difficulty in finding sources shows she is not notable enough for an article". I have stated above what I believe to be a perfectly valid argument for why she should be considered notable if she excited. Being a female scientist in the 11th century makes her notable. I do believe that argument is serious enough not to be ignored in the discussion, Roscelese. --Aciram (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

mm, maybe. my feeling is that this is a meta-case of WP:BIAS, a guideline one wishes that premodern historians might have considered, given the maddeningly random coverage of ancient women scientists, and that if she's mentioned even briefly and even in an ancient but secondary source, we ought to give her the extreme benefit of the doubt regarding notability and at least have a stub. if an 11th century woman working in a scientific field is mentioned by anyone at all, she must have been notable (based on some kind of analogy with Redaction criticism). i'm kind of leaning towards incubate if nothing turns up soon, depending on if i have to go to interlibrary loan to get some of the potential sources— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'd be willing to keep if evidence that she was actually mentioned in books of her time. If that's the case, she's probably mentioned under the name "Fatima bint Maslama al-Majriti". "Fatima de Madrid" seems like an innovation to me. I have one book of her Father (Ghayat al-hakim), she doesn't seem to be mentioned there. Also I don't understand why the attribution of this book to Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti is doubted according to his wiki article. I'll check "Tabaqt al-Umam" Tachfin (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• comment—thank you so much for that transliteration of her likely name. it helped quite a bit. the article on her in the spanish wikipedia gives that same diccionario de mujeres en la historia. i think that it's not searchable at all through google books is what's happening there. i got a copy of the Sa'id book and read it (it's quite short). there's nothing in there about al-Majriti having a daughter. I also found this scary-detailed list of mujeres sabias en al-andalus. her name does not seem to be in there, but for some reason i can't make my printer print it, so i don't feel sure that i didn't miss something (the diacritics make the search not work properly). to add insult to injury, i can't seem to get the diccionario easily through ILL, but i'm not giving up on that quite yet, although i can't imagine at this point what their source is going to be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep — the muslim female astronomer in 11th century in Spain is a person that is notable even if didn't exist: if so, the fact of her introduction is of more interest then her works nowdays. Taking in account that the lack of sources is fairly natural in this case, I believe that the case can be resolved by noting the doubts of her existance in article body. Czarkoff (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't work that way; that would be original research. If there were sources speculating that she did not exist, then we could include those, but then (paradoxically) she might be notable enough for an article, even as a legendary figure. The absence of sources saying that she exists means that the article may be a hoax, or at best wishful thinking. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Roscelese, I don not like the accusation that I have intentionally created a hoax article. I suggest that you report me to Wikipedia for investigation.Regards--Aciram (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
      • *facepalm* Not sure how I can make it much more clear that I don't think it's an intentional hoax than by...stating that it's not an intentional hoax. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Any search for al-Majriti that includes the word "daughter" goes back to the same core of information; doing it in books alone produces nothing. This seems to the fantasy of of an advocacy group but I cannot find any evidence that it is based upon any real primary source. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

we've already established that electronic search is not going to help. there are plenty of sources in the world that aren't searchable electronically. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then produce one! THe only source we have is only electronic, after all. Mangoe (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

slow down, partner. if you read the discussion you will see that i have not suggested that we keep this article, actually. also, i've stated explicitly that the only electronic source we have is obviously not reliable. i'm working on producing a source, and, if i find one, i will suggest that we keep the article. now it's looking like the only modern source is an obscure book in spanish. i've ordered it through interlibrary loan, and maybe we'll know more when it comes in, or maybe we won't and i'll then think that we should delete the article. as of now i have absolutely no opinion one way or the other.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete (e/c)Sources make someone notable and verifiable. While you could say that if she existed then she might be notable, the only way for us to know that is if she has coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just because it's been asserted by a single source that she existed doesn't mean that she did, and even if she did, simply being a woman, moslem would not make her notable, again, unless there is coverage of her notability. @Czarkoff: No, if she didn't exist then she definitely isn't notable. This is an encyclopedia, we don't publish conjecture. N^oformation ^Talk 03:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would say that being a female astronomer in the 11th century, and a moslem female scientist in the 11th century, does make her notable. I can not quite see how this argument can be ignored. This is unusual enough to be notable as a phenomena in itself. Somehow it seems as if though I am being ignored in this discussion, so I will therefore take my leave. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Look, there's no evidence thus far that she even existed. Come up with that source first, and then we can talk. Mangoe (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

clearly you're right. anyway, it seems that the diccionario de mujeres en la historia is the only thing anyone's found so far that has a claim to mention her, and it's not searchable electronically in any way that i can find. i've ordered the book through interlibrary loan and will report back eventually. the problem is that many libraries seem to have it cataloged as a reference work, so won't circulate it. but someone will. i also emailed the director of the organization that produced the poster to ask about sources, but so far nothing, and i'm betting she'll just come back with the diccionario.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• You would say that and you'd be wrong. Please see WP:NOTABLE, which on WP has a criteria of being talked about in reliable sources N^oformation ^Talk 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

my goodness, what would i be wrong about? did you think that i was going to cite some random person's email as support of anything? what i said, and what i mean, is that i think that if the director answers, the director will say that the actual printed book diccionario de mujeres en la historia was the source for the poster. possibly there are some other sources that we haven't found, which is why i asked the director. then i will look at the actual sources and see if (a) the information is actually in them, and (b) if the sources cite other sources, and (c) repeat if necessary. what exactly is problematic about this process? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

eek, my apologies to Noformation. i can see now that i take the time to look at the indentation properly that you weren't actually talking to me.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It occurs to me that sources are likely to be non-electronic and non-English. Possibly Spanish or Arabic. Also, it isn't exactly true that significant coverage of the subject is the only criterion that matters for notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (people), a scholar can be notable without her biography being the subject of secondary sources. She would be notable if she has made a widely recognized contribution to astronomy, or originated a significant new concept or discovery. Note that the concept or discovery is the notable thing that receives coverage, not necessarily the person; this is a possible exception to WP:NOTINHERITED. Simply "being an 11th century female Muslim astronomer" isn't really a good claim, although Wikipedia:Notability (academics) suggests that she'd be notable if sources make note of the rarity of female astronomers in her time — and it would be surprising if no source made note of this fact. Whether such sources exist is another matter. Anyone know how to spell her name in Arabic? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume it's spelled the way "Fatima" normally is spelled...I searched on fatima + astronomer (in Arabic), nothing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Really? I just googled for فاطمة الفلكي (fatima astronomer) and got 1.6 million hits. Google Scholar also returned an unmanageable number. I have no idea how to go about narrowing it down. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Wait, you're joking, right? What are these 1.6 million sources that I somehow just missed? Be serious now, and actually look at the hits instead of telling me there are 1.6 million pages that happen to contain both "fatima" and "astronomer." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
        • here's the search; you have to do it in arabic. it almost certainly means nothing, though, due to the fact that fatima, being a daughter of mohammed, is one of the most common first names for women in the muslim world. as a comparison, i get almost 3 million hits on mary+astronomer.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Here's another source, possibly the source for that calendar (due to the illustration being the same): http://biblioteca.uam.es/ciencias/Exposiciones/astronomia/astronomos.html — according to the translation, it looks like she might have done some significant work in astronomy. It seems that any description of Fatima has essentially the same text, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • No, the calendar is the source for the page - see the bottom "Extractos del «Calendario de Astrónomas que Hicieron Historia 2009»" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The creator of this page has just created a version of it on the Swedish Wikipedia, which seems like a rather dishonest move. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. A reading of the creator's user page suggests that the Swedish Wikipedia may be his home country's Wikipedia. In any case, each Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines. If the article exists there, that is not a concern for us here. No disruption or harm has been done. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Presuming this gets deleted, could a note be put on the deletion asking for it to be speedy undeleted if an appropriate source is found? A couple people have said they're trying to find one. As it stands, we should probably delete, but if we plan ahead a bit, we'll have avoided any problems if we were wrong. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment': I'm starting to think that there might be a confusion of "Fatimas". Here is a list of notable women of al-Andalus, you can find in page 10, "Fatima bint Abu al-Qasim al-Qurtubi al-Sharat" (died 1216 C.E.). Well this Fatima is notable as she was an Islamic scholar and worked very closely with her father. Since Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti is referred to in old sources (notably Ibn Khaldun) simply as "Abu al-Qasim al-Qurtubi al-Majriti" given the similarities of the names (Majrit close to Sherat when written in Arabic, especially in old manuscripts) someone might have confused her for a daughter of Abu al-Qasim. This might explain the scarce modern-day references to her in Spanish. In Arabic sources, hardly anything of Maslmah's life is known about, so I doubt any reference to his daughter -if he had one- can ever be found. Tachfin (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ooooh. Do you think it's the same person? This new source doesn't mention anything at all about astronomy, though certainly there were many Renaissance-men and -women. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This documernt refers to her as a "possibly fictional astronomer", apparently replicating content from somewhere else [1]. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's a highly likely that "Fatima de Madrid" is a fictionnal charachter, born out of confusion with "Fatima bint abu al-Qasim al Qurtubi" the Islamic scholar who worked with the her father -"abu al-Qasim al Qurtubi"- who happened to have a very similar name to Abu al-Qasim the polymath. It is not uncommon for some Spanish writers to fudge into old Arabic manuscripts and fantasize about the Muslims of Iberia. A woman astronomer of that era is of course more romantic than a woman Islamic scholar. Tachfin (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • i am beginning to believe also that something like this must be what happened. on the other hand, some of the statements in that calendar are weirdly specific, like the bit about "the corrections of fatima" and the specific works that she supposedly helped her father on. i'd really like to figure out where those statements came from, just to satisfy my curiosity. i'm losing hope of being able to find a source that will make it plausible that she existed, although i remain fascinated by uncovering the process by which she came to be thought to have existed. Paul B, good find! why is it that these astronomers don't cite their sources? so much for the cult of the expert on wp.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It may be likely... but we don't base (or keep) articles on what we think is likely (see WP:NOR). It actually does not matter if Fatima de Madrid is fictional or factual, legendary or real (we have lots of articles on fictional or legendary figures after all)... what matters is whether there are independent reliable sources that discuss the topic. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I have tried this a bunch of different ways, but I cannot find anything that doesn't trace back to www.sheisanastronomer.org, including any sign of these "Corrections". An advocacy organization producing an uncited biography of a person we cannot otherwise find a trace of is about as fringey as it gets. The argument that we might find sources is insufficient; if those sources are found, then someone can write the article de novo. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I've just added a link to a long article about Maslama al-Majriti, here it is. It includes a short bib list about him that might be useful. More info: There is a discussion about her with some new links here. There is also a mention of another female medieval astronomer, "Maeriam al-Ijliya al-Astrulabi". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• query—for tachfin. is there any chance that Fatima al-Fehri, mentioned here, might be confusible with the fatima under discussion here, if there is such a fatima? she's mentioned in connection with both her father and with astronomy, although not so much with al-andalus.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That was my initial thought but it's unlikely since the life of Fatima al-Fihri is relatively well documented; She lived two centuries earlier and never set foot in Iberia, she was primarily known as a pious woman who inherited a big fortune from her father and uncle which she utilized to build al-Qarawiyin where many subjects were thought including astronomy. Additionally, Fatema Mernissi -mentioned in the link above- wrote extensively about historically important Muslim women, I don't think she would have missed a figure as extraordinary as a women astronomer of the 10th-11th century. Many Sources would have been found by now if this person really existed, so far only a 1998 Spanish book and a couple of astronomy websites mention her. Tachfin (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • ok, good to know. i'm getting quite ready to say that she did not exist. i also emailed the guy who wrote the article that Paul B found to ask why he put in "probably fictional." my feeling is starting to be that we're going to have to delete this article, and if we can find rs that discuss how people came to imagine that she existed, recreate it with an explanation of that story for the sake of all the people who look at that calendar and wonder who she was.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I have to say, this is one of the more fascinating AfD discussions I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Now I've gotten all interested in a topic for which sources are really damn hard to find. Regardless of whether this person was real or fictional, it's interesting. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • i definitely agree with you there!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - in spite of Keep arguments that amount to nothing but WP:INHERIT, this woman lacks the multiple examples of detailed coverage in reliable sources mandated by WP:BIO, whether she existed or not. Agricolae (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• comment—the author of the material discovered by Paul B tells me in an email that he has no sources other than the ones we've discovered already, and also that he came to the conclusion himself that she was possibly fictional, and that, in his knowledge, there's not another source that states that explicitly. i'm going to wait on the diccionario to show up before coming out for a deletion, but it's looking like that's the way it's going to go.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Good investigative work! a woman astronomer of the 11th century isn't something casual; mainstream published sources would've certainly discussed her if she was real. Tachfin (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Per tertiary sources: Safe Graíño, Cristina (1998). "Dictionary of women in history." Madrid: Espasa Calpe. ISBN 84-239-8631-4 and (in Spanish) "Fátima de Madrid." Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Additionally, "Majrīṭī: Abū al‐Qāsim Maslama ibn Aḥmad al‐Ḥāsib al‐Faraḍī al‐Majrīṭī." The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, may serve to verify information in the article. Perhaps more searching in academic sources and library print sources can further qualify this topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait--do you have Dictionary of women in history? What does it say, and on what page? If you don't have that information, then how can you claim it even is a tertiary source for this subject? (BTW, please don't translate foreign-language titles: it's incorrect and confusing.) Drmies (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Wanted to ask the same thing. If you have that book what does it say? On what did the author base her report of "Fatima de Madrid"? Tachfin (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Of the three 'new' sources, the second of these is identical, verbatim, right down to the illustrations, with the calendar that has already been identified as the source for our page in the original nomination, so it hardly counts as an independent source (since the images are cropped on the new page, it seems to have been lifted from the calendar). The third doesn't name her at all. That leaves the first, so the question by Drmies is appropos, as this is the only thing new to the discussion that may indicate a greater notability. And by the way, the author's surname is Segura Graíño - you never want to translate a surname. I'm guessing you haven't actually seen this, right? Agricolae (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as it pains me to support deletion of a medieval woman, and as much as I am saddened by having to agree with User:Agricolae (ha!), I don't see any other option. There are no reliable sources, none whatsoever, there are only doubts and an odd website or two. I've plowed through JSTOR, looking for different permutations of the key words, and came up with nothing whatsoever. Now, on a topic like this, if none of us (and some of the editors here are academic professionals) can find anything reliable, then we have no choice. And while it is true that there could be perfectly valid offline material, we don't have that material, nor do we seem to have access to a derivative publication. Yes, Amatulić, a fascinating character and an interesting discussion, and I hate to have to say "delete." Drmies (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

comment—ok, i got a copy of this: Otto Neugebauer (1962). The astronomical tables of al-Khwārizmī: translation with commentaries of the Latin version., which is the book that she was supposed to have helped majriti edit and revise. first, it turns out that no arabic mss of majriti's version exist, so the source is a latin translation, probably done by abelard of bath. neugebauer uses suter's critical edition of the latin text, and updates it using every known latin ms, even those unknown to suter. he has a detailed appendix which covers every possible contributor to each of the known mss, and never ever once says anything about fatima, or even mentions majriti having a daughter. i'm still waiting on the diccionario to come in, but it's more for curiosity than with hope at this point, because i can't imagine that they'll have a good source that nobody else has found and cited. by now, we've all done a lot of excellent research, but it's original research, and couldn't even be the basis for rewriting the article to say that she was imaginary. sigh... — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Alf--I hope you know you have an academic article waiting to happen here. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • it crossed my mind, but clearly it's a joint paper, except none of us know who our collaborators are. perhaps we can all write up something for whichever other wikimedia project that kind of thing would go in?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That won't get you tenure. Write it up and thank the participants here in a footnote. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree. It would be a shame for this fascinating discussion to go to waste. Alf, if you can benefit from it in your career, go ahead, then some good will come of all of this. You've done a lot of the work already. I'm sure others won't mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        • thanks for the votes of confidence, everyone! as it happens (i'm trying to be vague here) i am in a position where either i don't think about tenure or else writing papers on this kind of thing won't help with with tenure (which i may or may not have to think about). what's actually more interesting to me than the outcome is the process we're carrying on here. this is the only afd i've ever participated in that i will be sorry to see closed.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

comment—here is another astronomer who's been confused historically with majriti, but no word on a daughter: Helaine Selin (31 July 1997). Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures. Springer. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-7923-4066-9.

• Comment - One of the works claimed for Fatima de Madrid is the Tratado del astrolabio held at Escorial. However, Biografías de matemáticos árabes que florecieron en España says it is described by Casiri as follows "Tractatus de Astrolabio, XXV capita complectens, inscriptus Astrolabio descriptio, et intelligentia nominum signorumque descripto planispherii, tun externorum, tun internorum: auctore Ahmedo ben Alsopharo Cordobensi, qui sexto Egiro seculo maximé inclaruit." (emphasis added) In other words, the work itself bears an inscription attributing it to someone else, Ahmed ibn al-Soffar of Cordoba - in full Abulcasim Ahmed Benabdala Benomar el Gafiqui, known vulgarly as Benelsoffar. (Addition: this is Ibn al-Saffar, the protege of Maslama al-Majriti, Fatima's supposed father. Agricolae (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)) Of course, that doesn't mean he is the actual author, but if someone has suggested a revised authorship, again, we should have found it, I would think. (It is also possible that two different works named Tratado del astrolabio are in play here, but I see the supposed work of Fatima of Madrid explicitly identified by number as this Escorial mss.) Likewise, our original source from 2009 lists other works attributed to her, "También trabajaron sobre calendarios, el cálculo de las posiciones verdaderas del Sol, la Luna y los planetas, tablas de senos y tangentes, Astronomía esférica, tablas astrológicas, cálculos de paralaje, eclipses y visibilidad de la Luna", which appears to have been taken verbatim from the following text, "Los temas principales cubiertos en la obra son los calendarios; el cálculo de las posiciones verdaderas del Sol, la Luna y los planetas; tablas de senos y tangentes; astronomía esférica; tablas astrológicas; cálculos de paralajes y eclipses; y visibilidad de la Luna" that has appeared in WP.es since 2007 in a description of the works of Al-Juarismi [2]. Then again, none of the Ghits for "Correcciones de Fátima", her supposed work, predate the creation of her WP.es page in 2008. This has every appearance of being a hoax that has gone viral. Agricolae (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• comment—excellent! maybe not viral, but spiral, since it's possibly coming from wp.es to the world back to wp.en. it makes me want to get that russian book wp.es sources the sentence to.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, we can now dismiss any claim the calendar might have had to the benefit of the doubt, given it clearly co-opted the accomplishments of a distinct person and couldn't even be bothered to rephrase the pirated material. There is still the Diccionario, whatever it says. I note that the wp.es editor who created this page based on the Diccionario is still (quite) active. Agricolae (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• delete the sourcing is at this point insufficient and the notability questionable. Such articles may only be kept if it is certain that those issues can be fixed, but in this case it though it might be conceivable it is anything but certain.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep so long as this is re-sourced, I will look for some online. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding trouble finding ones that dont mirror wikipedia, however book sources of which I have no access to, might exist in Spanish – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as a likely hoax popularized by Spanish Wikipedia. The only source for the existence of such person is a 1998 book of Spanish feminist "Cristina Segura Graíño" and it is a primary source as far as we can see. Ms. Segura Graíño either has a primary source that we couldn't find (unlikely as such an exceptional discovery would've been covered elsewhere), made an error or just invented this character out of thin air. Al-Maqqari one of the earliest historians of al-Andalus and source of much material we know of about that period, made a list of notable women in Al-Andalus; I've checked it and no trace of such a person. There are not even any female scientists in it just poets. It's not in Said Al-Andalusi's biographies either. Why not email "Ms. Segura Graíño" and ask her what's the story behind this exactly? Tachfin (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• delete—that never occurred to me! she seems to be on the Facultad de Geografía e Historia and in the Departamento de Historia Medieval of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and her phone number and mailing address (not email?!) can be found through this directory, which doesn't allow direct linking to searches. it's pretty clear by now that nuestra querida Fátima nunca existió. but the book by Segura is still coming through ILL at some point, and I'll let everyone know what happens if no one else has figured it out yet. or maybe someone can find another way than email to get in touch with her?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• comment—actually, here is what looks like an old page with an email address. maybe someone who writes spanish wants to try?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep [3] has an article about the Malaga Astronomical Society creating a calender listing the 12 most important international scholars in the field of astronomy, which included her. Note that in Spanish its "Fátima de Madrid" while Google translator makes some mistakes and changes the "de" into something else. [4] also gives coverage. Google news her name and the word "Astronomía" [5] and you get other results. Those two seem fine. Dream Focus 13:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The first of these is reporting on the calendar, and just mentions Fatima in passing based on what the calendar reported. The second simply paraphrases or repeats verbatim the same text as is in the calendar. Read all the rest of the GNews hits and they are all either reporting on the calendar or reporting on female scientists deriving their information from the calendar. This would be reason to consider the calendar notable, perhaps, but does the fact that a handful of media sites parrot this info really grounds for notability of Fatima, particularly since the calendar clearly made up much of what it reported about her? Agricolae (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Dream Focus: You might want to read the prior comments; you'll see that the two "delete" entries above yours are from participants who made their "delete" determination only after extensive research and deliberation on this page. While I would love to see this article kept, I have to agree that this may be a meme. The sources appear to parrot each other and no definitive historical source has been found to establish the existence of this person as an historical figure. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete it as the reference says about a different person than who the article is describing. DBhuwanSurfer 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)
• Delete without prejudice - until and unless we can find a solid source as to her very existence, far less notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 13 October 2011 (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.