Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabean colonization of Africa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Nominator CU-blocked as a troll. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabean colonization of Africa

[edit]

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

Sabean colonization of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Article has numerous inconsistencies, provides no historical backing or basis with historical events e.g, wars, vassal rulers, kings, inscriptions, etc there is no information of such an event occurring at all. In addition it provides no historical context or historical affirmation that this happened and is mainly based on 21st century consensuses and useless arguments provided in citations which talks for a totally different reason not a "colonization" at the very least a migration but this page doesn't make any favours for that. Hence this page can be seen as a probative of Pro-Yemeni nationalist propaganda or anti-Ethiopian sentiment. Once again its historical section is uses nothing actually historical and its nothing more than conflating opinions from scholars in the 21st century which have been used as fictitious references and has been deleted by me, in addition, opinions are usually on a separate section on an article and its not appropriate them in the historical subsection without any historical context. There's nothing on this page linking back to something that can indicate it happened and there's not a single shred of evidence hence why the article only uses opinions (which differentiate). Hence is a clear use of Imposter content, Wikipedia:Fictitious references a violation of Wikipedias policy. Sections of the page have already been removed due to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apprentix (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be disingenuous here; by "Sections of the page have already been removed due to this" you mean that YOU removed those sections based on your own notions. Ravenswing 20:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – being mainly based on 21st-century consensus is not only fine by us, it is obligatory: we care about present scholarly consensus, and moreover are not qualified to dispute or downplay it. Remsense ‥ 论 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Based on some of the nom's statements here and at the associated ANI complaint, I'm comfortable with deeming this a bad faith nomination. Looking over the sources presented, they are themselves well-attested, and there's enough of them to disprove the notion that it's a fringe viewpoint. His readiness to sling around accusations of nationalism -- often the first recourse of rabid nationalists themselves -- is troubling, as is his obsession with the premise that history somehow doesn't count without attested monarchs or battles. That the nom doesn't like the conclusions of the numerous contemporary scholars who've held these positions so distasteful to him is evident, but his own nationalist animus doesn't equate to discrediting them. Ravenswing 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion: The sources cited by the author of this article do not reflect the modern academic consensus that they are trying to claim. The claims made in this article are an extrapolation of the idle conjecture of 19th and 20th century archaeologists and anthropologists (particularly Carlo Conti Rossini), as is noted when actually going through the citations themselves. Even a topical investigation of citations 1, 6, 18, and 19 by an amateur reader should demonstrate that the author is essentially grasping at straws, and making connections that don't substantively exist. How the author cited literature that supports the notion of close cultural contact between two historic people-groups along with the presence of Sabean script/temples, to then using this as a substantiation of ancient colonization is a mystery to me. Just as well, the final section using citation number 20 seems to quote a complete fabrication that cannot be found in the source text. I think this is grounds enough to believe the author did not write this article in good-faith, and that the claims given in the article cannot be substantiated either by any modern historical consensus that the author sufficiently demonstrated nor by the given citations/source texts. Ax Gagce (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Ax Gagce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "The results are consistent with the hypothesis, supported by historical and linguistic evidence, for a common origin of these groups from a Cushitic-speaking group living in eastern Africa." Hell's bells, you didn't even read the whole of the abstract, let alone the source, did you? Talk about "grasping at straws" or "making connections ... that don't exist." Ravenswing 02:02, 15 December 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabean_colonization_of_Africa&oldid=1263165587"