Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ʿĀd

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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn)(non-admin closure) ƬheStrike Σagle 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ʿĀd[edit]

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

Sources may prove no evidence of notability as 2 of the three sources lead to 404 errors. Possible hoax? The Snowager-is awake 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two related AfDs about ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad, being Afd'd by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies). --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different topics entirely. One is about the tribe/people of ʿĀd. The second is about a person, a descendent of Noah. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to copy my findings here where they are more relevant: "I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies". My conclusion: no hoax, but not encyclopedia notable either. Delete. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to ‘Ad. Unnecessary to have entries on both in view of amount of information available. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But ‘Ad is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad), too. Compare: ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad: different articles. Compare Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies): the AfDs are different. Of course if they really are one people then articles should be merged. But if one is about a people in Saudi Arabia during one time period, and other is about people somewhere else at some other time, then probably not, though hatnote disambiguation is needed. --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I copy in my !vote from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/‘Ad. "If nothing else, Wikipedia should provide comprehensive coverage of peoples! Up with people! If there is doubt whether such a people existed, then say that in the article. It is useful for Wikipedia to cover peoples that are merely hypothesized to have existed by anthropologists, which turn out later to be viewed as within some already-named larger people. This happens for animals, too: e.g. Cape lions of South Africa were considered to be a distinct group, and later argued to be nothing special. Of course if this is a hoax within Wikipedia, then it should be deleted (and recorded somewhere in a list of hoaxes). --do ncr am 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--do ncr am 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - what the what? Snowager are you smoking crack? The fact the article is available in 17 languages, including an Arabic version that dates to 2009, should be your first clue this is not a hoax. Or is the best hoax of all time - when a troll invented an entire people, and didn't try to hide the hoax page but linked to it all over Wikipedia, and nobody noticed! Further, the Arabic term is RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE. A quick search shows a gazillion articles, including many, many photos of archeological digs, skeletons and anthropology charts like you'd imagine would be part of research of an ancient civilization. And finally, if any of you happen to speak English, this and this come up on the FIRST page of Google when doing a basic search. Worst. AfD. ever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS It seems the hoaxers also made documentaries! Well played. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll withdraw the nomination as the other AFD was closed as keep, but the other page should instead be merged to Ād, not to mention I don't smoke crack. The Snowager-is awake 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, with all sincerity, what do you smoke then? And can I get some? I'm guessing by the other page you're talking about ‘Ad, who is (according to religious text) a descendent of Noah. Why why why would this be merged to a non-existent page called Ād, which is apparently, (wikt:Ād) a term for planet earth in an endangered language in Poland? And should A.D. also be merged while we're at it?? —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you mean to write that ‘Ad should be merged to ʿĀd? ʿĀd is an ancient civilization. ‘Ad was a single person who figures in religious text. If this is what you're proposing, why would they be merged? And should we also consider merging everything to .ad? I think this option should be considered. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have meant that, but like I said, I'll choose to withdraw my nomination as they should be two separate articles. Thanks. The Snowager-is awake 02:04, 22 May 2015 (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.