Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maslawi

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 Mosul. And merge anything useful and sourceable from history. Sandstein 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maslawi

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

This article is entirely unreferenced. If there were any RS-supported material, I would think it should be merged to the city of Mosul. But there is none. Tagged for lack of refs for close to 4 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, depending on the subject, it's sometimes tough finding references online for a Arabic-related page. As you can see on he page, it does exist on the Arabic version of Wiki.. Any person of common knowledge of Iraq is aware of the page's importance. Added a few refs. Chaldean (talk) 07:58, 30 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (where verifiable), redirect There seem to be quite a few verifiable facts here. The article overlaps as nom says with Mosul; it also overlaps with North Mesopotamian Arabic (as Mosul does). The lists of Maslawis in the article and in Mosul also overlap and could be merged. I'd be willing to go along with a merge and redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a redirect. As to a merge, I think that would only be appropriate for the list of notable people and the refs (though it is unclear what they support -- perhaps they are meant as ELs. The text of the main section is both non-referenced and challenged, and therefore not I believe appropriate for merger.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Chaldean has added 2 references (both books). While it would have been nicer if these had been inline, their titles (M. and its minorities -- i.e. its peoples; History of M.) suggest they support the main text, so we now have an article that is referenced. As for challenged, that word has various meanings. If it means 'at AfD', we knew that already. If it means 'poorly written', that can be fixed without recourse to AfD and is not itself cause for deletion. Similarly, if it means 'contains some disputed facts' then which ones? But again, no cause for deletion.

The facts now are that 'Maslawi' unquestionably means an inhabitant of M, that there are indisputably (cited) histories of that city, apparently correctly summarized in the article, and there is a valid list of famous inhabitants. The current options are merge or keep, I think, which wasn't the case at time of nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the challenge issue -- it was challenged in 2008 when it was tagged for no refs (I've added another perhaps clearer tag now), and when it was nominated for AfD, and it can be deleted at any time as unreferenced text which is another way of challenging it (I can do that now if that would make it clearer), or I can just state now (as I do) "I challenge the text". Our verifiability policy is a core policy, and merger of challenged, non-referenced text is within it. I'm not at all "challenging" it for being poorly written; I'm challenging all text that is not supported by inline citations, for the purpose of deleting it (or not allowing its merge) per our verifiability policy, which indicates that all challenged text must be supported by inline citations to remain. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge So "Maslawi" means "a person from Mosul". That would make for one sentence in the Mosul article, not a separate fork/duplication article. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mosul as per above. No-brainer to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:05, 2 February 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.