Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beiruk

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 Delete.Gazi moff 09:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beiruk[edit]

A rich Saharaoui tribal chief who is said to have had some business relations with some foreign countries being introduced to Wikipedia as an "ancient country" with a "status=Empire" and a population of 9,836. But an ancient country/empire? The chief could warrant a bio though I'd still doubt if he'd be notable enough with enough reliable sources provided.

Reasons for deletion:

This is original research. The only existing book I could find -- called The African Repository doesn't refer to any country whatsoever. None of the references used to advance this original research (synthesis) is a reliable source (one is a lycos page, the other is a regional online newspaper article written by a Professor at the Department of Translation at the University of Granada (Spain)). Is he an expert? An unknown "ancient country"?
The image used (a map) is original research. It is being used on the article without any source or reference. The map in fact is a self-made image uploaded by the same user who created the article.

Notes:

The article has been created in parallel in the Spanish Wikipedia. It was created by the same user using an IP evading a community ban out there. The user in question is blocked in both the Spanish and the French Wikipedia for similar behaviour (extreme POV pushing, edit warring, personal attacks, lack of reliable sources, synthesis). This tells us much about the intentions behind the creation of such an article. The reason is simply to add it to a main country template as being a former dynasty.
I blocked this editor before and both blocks were reviewed by some Spanish respected editors and admins back on 2006. This time I'd not block and I'd not even ask for him to be blocked. But I am asking the community to decide what to do with this article under all the presented circumstances. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

Delete. This article simply does not make any sense, and without references, I'd almost say it was a hoax. I have no idea why someone would do that, though. It is worth noting that this user has made lots of similar pages, but hasn't cited very much. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the moment fails WP:V. For a country that presumably existed in 19th century (and even early 20th century) much better sources should be available. What is listed in the article does not seem to pass WP:RS and I could not find anything better after quite a bit of google searching. I am not sure that this is a hoax. At least one of the sources listed in the article, in Spanish, contains relevant info. Here is a link to a translated version (using Google automatic translator):[1]. I am not sure what the website hosting this page is but I would think that for the kind of claims contained in the article much better sourcing is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a hoax? In a sense, not really. It is clear that the man existed and it seems that he had some commercial links with a few foreign countries. It was a common thing at those times (read Scramble for Africa). There were hundreds of rich and privileged people throughout Morocco who mantained good business relations with foreign powers. Nothing more. It is insane to call these subjects countries, dynasties and empires unless it is verifiable. The proof is that nobody refers to them that way except some newly (2 or 3) created articles (2 or 3) online written by bloggers and a professor of translation instead of history. The author doesn't tell us from where he got his knowledge (or translation since he is not a historian). The user who created this article has also created maps (he did them) to advance his political agenda. He was blocked indefinitely in both the Spanish and the French Wiki for the same reasons. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I agree, although I wanted to put it more diplomatically. Nsk92 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless if it is a hoax or not, the entry lacks the references and reliable sources it needs to back up its claims. --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't actually think it's a hoax, but I thought it might be worth suggesting. Nonetheless, I think the only difference between it being a hoax and it not is whether we delete it now or later. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Even if it isn't a hoax, I oppose per all above me. Asenine 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete The only Beiruk connected to Morocco is a historical person: Sheikh Beiruk. This search turns up no reliable sources on a place called Beiruk: [2] Even if the article was on this person, he would fail notability and WP:BIO but it isn't--its on a place called Beiruk. Therefore it lacks verifiability, notability and likely contains WP:OR Artene50 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good old fashioned Babelfish gibberish, to start with, but then it goes on to have a kingdom that no historical atlas can verify and which shows up nowhere but this user's account. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (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.