Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawatmeh

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. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawatmeh

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

Zero refs; appears to be OR. An orphan. Tagged for zero refs and as an orphan for well over a year. Created by a 1-edit-ever-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per op. Cloudz 679 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per such geneology websites as: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5], I am lead to believe that this surname definately exists and is therefore not OR. However, I do not know what the criteria is regardiing articles on surnames. I for one have found it highly suspect that many more obscure surnames have their own Wikipedia articles. Whether or not they deserve an article is beyond my knowledge. I have simply brought new information to light. P.S. Nayef Hawatmeh uses the surname, so do Randa Hawatmeh and Iehab J. Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. FWIW, a fact may exist and may still be OR. I'm not sure those geneology sites, btw, are RSs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow... can you explain the view that "a fact may exist and may still be OR"? Also FWIW, the first geneology website i linked to (MUNDIA) appears to be an offshoot of ancestry.com, which (I'm pretty sure) is the largest ancestry website on the internet. On first glance, I am unsure as to the reliability of the other ones... Also, out of interest, what does the fact that a few notable people have that surname mean for it's notability?--Coin945 (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~A search of the surname at ancestry.com yields 3,289,749 results.~~ The actual number of results on the page is only around 700. After page 14 (if you view 50 at a time), there doesn't seem to be anyone named Hawatmeh.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material such as facts for which we have no reliable, published sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented. Thus, even if something is a "fact" -- if you lack RS support for it, it is OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2012 (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.