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 keep. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harith ibn Harb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history. Did little to be notable, and the fact that he had notable relations doesn't make him notable Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Son of..., brother of..., married to wife of... but utterly non-notable. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Genealogy is significant information but a merge is probably more appropriate than keeping an independent article. --Sainge.spin (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is ,more than just genealogy--these articles being nominated are on some of the key figures in the origin of a great religion, & what they need is expansion. The proposals are sort of like keeping the article on Washington but removing the ones of the other generals. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few more sources on Google books [1]. I'm not yet convinced Harith ibn Harb merits an independent article in the same way some of the other figures at issue here do, but I am voting a strong keep to allow further work to be done. The readiness to simply delete this set of articles without better research disturbs me. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per DGG, add context so the notability is more evident to all - that is regular editing thus deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 07:04, 25 January 2010 (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.