Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaabou

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Discussion regarding a potential merge can continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chaabou

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

The subject may not be fictional, AFAIK, but it fails WP:GNG. You might want to see the discussion on Talk:Chaabou. The PROD tag was removed by DGG. Google books do turn up a few mentions, I can't ascertain if they warrant an article for the subject. Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 12:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some of the problems will be clearer from an earlier version. Needless to say, removing this content, if it could indeed be documented, would be a violation of NPOV. (it's in any case not a slur on Islam, but an indication of the ignorant bigotry of the early medieval author) DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have rewritten the article to accord with the two sources I could find discussing "Chaabou"/"Kaabu". As far as I can tell, the only source for the existence of this deity is Epiphanius of Salamis, who likely confused a reference to stone blocks used to represent Dusares or his mother with the proper name of a goddess. This misunderstanding is too minor for its own article, so we should merge it to Dusares.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:50, 28 February 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 6 March 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 00:13, 13 March 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.