Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirani Ameena Begum

Pirani Ameena Begum

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

Prod was removed without reason. Apparently, the only claim for notability of this person was that she was married to somebody who may have been notable and that she published a collection of poems, most of which are now lost. No sources are provided. Given the apparent lack of notability I propose to delete this article. Crusio (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• To Crusio I added references about her personal publications: Women's Seclusion in the East, by Amina Begum Inayat Khan. "The Sufi" magazine No. 3 Vol. I, Sept. 1915 and 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 I know about other her publications during 1930-1960 but now I don't have precise data. Sergey Moskalev talk 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The creator of this article left a note on my talk page and the article's discussion page, I copy it here (edited for layout) with my response as it pertains to the deletion discussion:

• About Pirani Amina Begum article deletion: According to a dictionary, "notable" can refer to one of two general concepts:

"Notable" can mean "worthy of note". A "note" is a written record, so notable means "worthy of written records".

"Notable can refer to the concept of being important, significant, famous, unique, etc.

Of these two definitions, only the first is in line with Wikipedia policy and practice.

[[1]] Sergey Moskalev (talk 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• reply: Dear Sergey, thank you for the dictionary definitions of "notability". Unfortunately, notability has its own, special meaning onWikipedia. I suggest you read the policy article on notability. I see that you have added some references to the article, but they still don't seem to establish notability of Pirani Ameena Begum, only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter. By the way, this discussion should better be placed at the AfD page and I will copy your comments and my reply there. --Crusio (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that Wikipedia uses a different, special definition of notable; WP:Notability mentions the "worthy of notice" definition in the second sentence. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely notable/worthy of note. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:15 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Question. Thanks for your opinion, D. Trebbien. However, it might be useful if you could give your reasons on why you think this person is notable? If you would have any additional references, that would be great, because the article currently only cites references that are only tangently related to the subject. --Crusio (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much, admittedly, but the sentence "Hazrat Inayat Khan often said that without Ameena Begum's loving and precious help he would never have been able to bring the Sufi Message to the Western world." leads me to think that she was important in spreading Sufi.

I don't know very much about Sufi, but its article is rather long, so it probably has a wide following. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:55 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• To me that phrase just suggests that she was a loving and supportive wife of a notable person. But that doesn't seem to infer notability by itself.--Crusio (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see that; it doesn't say.

Here is another line: "Amina Begum was one of the first female Sufi Sheikh". It is fairly rare in some Islamic cultures for women to be respected figures (I am not saying I like this, of course). « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:28 2008 February 3 (UTC)

• Delete. Recent efforts to improve the article have been helpful. However, the references seem to refer to her as a devoted wife who assisted her more famous relatives in doing their jobs. She does not seem to be regarded as a creative person in her own right. (No published work by her seems to have survived). She was a person who earned respect, and stories about her can be found at various self-published web sites that unfortunately don't count as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited, or given to you by your spouse or children. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the part in which it was stated that she was one of the "first female Sufi Sheikh"s? « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:16 2008 February 4 (UTC)

That's one of the claims that is given with no source. Someone who has the books might be able to check it out for us. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(No published work by her seems to have survived). We add references and sources of her published works 1915 and 1988 Sergey Moskalev (talk 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sergey Moskalev made an edit with the edit summary: I decide removing the "dated prod" notice. Reason - this article will be expand and more new materials will be added to it. To be tolerant to other culture only strengthen spirit of Wikipedia « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:22 2008 February 4 (UTC)

I put the AfD template back. It must have been a mixup. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep appears to have played a sufficiently important historic role. "She's only the wife of ..." should probably get specified as an inherently sexist inappropriate argument. Spouses can play a central role in things,and she apparently did. It would be better to have a more accessibvle source for that, however.DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the comment on this being a sexist argument is completely unwarranted, please WP:AGF! If the genders had been opposite, I would still nominate this for deletion. Being the spouse of somebody notable (whether husband or wife) does not confer notability, unless the person himself/herself was notable for other rezasons than being a spouse. In the present case, I don't think any evidence of indpendent notability has been provided. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I do assume good faith towards this particular nomination, no doubt about it, and I apologize if I implied otherwise--I think our recurrent attitude to spouses of notable figures is the problem--we tend to not look hard enough for their individual accomplishments. It's the general historic social attitude not limited to WP that "oh, she's just someone's wife" that is sexist. DGG (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that user Crusio, who nominate this article for deletion, produce not only sexist arguments, but allow to himself offensive remarks like: "only (perhaps) of her husband and daughter". If this "(perhaps)" relate to Noor Inayat Khan who was - GC, MBE, British Special Operations Executive agent in World War II of Indian origin and the first female radio operator to be sent into occupied France to aid the French Résistance, so this remark for my opinion have bitter taste of racism. Sergey Moskalev (talk) 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion is starting to degrade. DGG, apologies accepted, I see what you mean. Sergey, I really don't see where in any comment I said anything that could be construed as racism. Please let's stick to the topic, which is the notability of the subect of this article, Pirani Ameena Begum, not that of any of her relatives. --Crusio (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Sergey that cultural differences are part of the issue. Allow for newby editor to source and write article so subject is more clear.