Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deyr ü Rahba

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 redirect‎ to Al-Rahba. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deyr ü Rahba[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article includes a single source, which does not verify the content and was evidently misrepresented. I found the archived link to the original source, and here "Deyr u Rahba" is only mentioned as an administrative division of the Diyarbekir Eyalet in a table on page 19 under the column "Sancaqs that are not also Kurdish chiefdoms". And there is no mention of "an Abbasid province of Diyar Bakr". The text clearly refers to the Ottoman times. While this only shows that the article should be rewritten, and the topic itself did exist, the article was basically forgotten after its creation in 2017; it may also require a name change to better fit the English language. The content isn't much, so a deletion would be more valuable, unless someone magically decides to expand and rename the article. It is also worth noting that the Ottoman province is mentioned in other articles such as Al-Rahba#Ottoman era, so Wikipedia won't lose any well-sourced information. Aintabli (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. Aintabli (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Diyarbakır Province~~ Al-Rahba (see below response from Pilaz for reason for that target) - Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant WP:RS, and there is really nothing to merge. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in, it was not actually located in the modern-day Diyarbakır province of Turkey. It is today a part of Syria. It should either redirect to Al-Rahba, Diyarbekir Eyalet, or Rakka Eyalet. Honestly, the first would be much more appropriate, since the borders of administrative divisions often changed. First, it was a part of Diyarbekir, then Raqqa, and perhaps another eyalet/vilayet in later years of the Ottomans. Al-Rahba, on the other hand, appears to have served as the center of the Deyr-Rahbe per Al-Rahba#Ottoman era, not to mention the name similarity. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I was misled by the stub message that specified '...a location in Diyarbakır Province, Turkey...' I have scratched that target from my !vote and will update when a redir target is agreed by people who know better than I. Thanks and Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly needs more input. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Al-Rahba as suggested by the nominator. In its current state, fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage. As evidenced by the nom, the article in its current state is not tenable since it is based on an erroneous interpretation, and there is nothing to merge, so redirecting seems the way to go. The target redirect seems to fit since this subdivision seemed to be centered around Al-Rahba. Last1in, would this redirect work for you? Pilaz (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly. I don't know the area or its history well enough to have a good opinion, so I was hoping someone like you would make a good suggestion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2023 (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.