Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arabian Houses

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. There appears to be agreement that while the title of this article is not ideal, the underlying topic is notable. Further discussion of how to rename the article can proceed on the talk page and/or with a move request. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arabian Houses[edit]

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

List of Arabian Houses (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)

WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:UNSOURCED for 19 years. Fails WP:LISTCRIT with vague/ambiguous scope major royal families and their allies in the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century. Why "major" (not in title)? When does a "royal family" qualify for "major" and when not? Are "houses" the same as "royal families"? Why are we limiting ourselves to "the 20th century", but sneakily adding dates from before 1900 and after 2000 in all the time? Why do we include "allies"? What kind of "allies"? Do they need to be "royal families" too or can the U.S. government also count as an "ally" of the House of Saud, for example? What do we mean by "the Arabian Peninsula"? Apparently that includes Bahrain, all of Iraq and all of Jordan...
I'm separating this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries, because it doesn't really fit that bundle, and should be assessed on its own terms. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list itself probably doesn't fail WP:LISTCRIT but the way it's been defined in the article might. Houses are the same as royal families - that's pretty obvious from context. The big question here is whether the list can be fixed without deleting it by redefining it, and I think it probably could. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got a suggestion? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I currently think it's best to WP:TNT this; start over with RS and an unambiguous scope. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said, it's not my favourite thing - and I agree it needs work (which I'm not in a position to do right now) - probably as 'List of Arabian royal families', where 'Arabia' is generally defined as GCC + Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Yemen. The sourcing isn't really an issue, as the list is linked out to sourced material but I do note some articles around this (Tribes of Arabia) are an appalling mess of ridiculous assertion with dubious sourcing ('Al Sirhan' or 'Al Andalusi' are not sources worth citing without specific page numbers, editions etc). I would agree the 'allies' can go, too. But the list does fulfil a function not otherwise fulfilled and I'd seek an alternative to deletion which, in this case, would be retention and cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the list could be brought in line with WP:CSC #1? Fair enough, but we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. No article can rely entirely on the sources of another article (WP:CIRC). I still think WP:TNT per WP:NOW is a better idea than keeping this stuff like this for another 19 years. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIRC doesn't really apply to lists where the article the list points to is properly sourced - it's to make sure that articles aren't self-referential. And WP:TNT is only a reason for deletion in limited instances that don't really apply here. Deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I partially agree, but even if I were to fully agree, we still need WP:RS to establish the scope, and that these items are regularly grouped as a group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alexandermcnabb's decision. CastJared (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove "their allies" and "20th century" from the criteria (also no capital H if the title is kept). There are no allies listed (plus it's a fuzzy criterion), and 20th century is purely arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your suggestions; they are good first steps. How would you define 'Arabian Peninsula'? Does it include Bahrain, Socotra, other islands, all of Iraq, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait etc.? As long as we've got no definition, this is a fuzzy criterion as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arabia generally refers to GCC + Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. Socotra part of Yemen. However, Arabian peninsula is GCC and Yemen. GCC = Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Saudi in clockwise order... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, because the main article Arabian Peninsula shows the following two maps:
  • Arabian Peninsula
    Arabian Peninsula
  • The constituent countries of Arabia
    The constituent countries of Arabia
No Syria in either "Arabian Peninsula" or "Arabia". No Jordan in "Arabia", or only part of Jordan in "Arabian Peninsula". No Iraq in "Arabia", or only part of Iraq in "Arabian Peninsula". Therefore, "Arabian" in the title "List of Arabian Houses", and "Arabian Peninsula" in the opening sentence, may refer to two different areas. Moreover, you include "Jordan, Syria, Iraq" in "Arabia", but the second map does not. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, WP:OTHERSTUFF... As someone living in Arabia and responsible for many, many publications here over the decades such as 'The Arabian Computer Guide', I can only give you my understanding of 'Arabia'. The peninsula is easier, as I said, GCC+Yemen and nicely defined by the landmass. In any case, you could neatly handle that with 'List of Arab royal families', 'cos that's GCC + Jordan right now, but Syria AND Iraq used to have royal families. Arabian sits easier with me because it's a geo and not an ethnicity, which I find more comfortable - purely personally. But whatever is decided, that's talk page stuff and not AfD stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The people of the Arabian peninsula are also unanimous that the wee sea up there is the Arabian Gulf, but WP defines it as the Persian Gulf, which shows just how much we in the West care about how they define themselves... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite WP:RS which support your geographical definition of either 'Arabia' or 'Arabian Peninsula', we've got somewhere to go, and we could save this article from deletion. They don't have to be 'Western' sources, they don't even have to be written in English per se; as long as they are reliable, verifiable, and relevant for our purposes here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The geographical scope of the article isn't a reason for deletion!!! As @SportingFlyer mentions above, deletion is not cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. If a geographical scope is self-invented, arbitrary, subjective, not supported by reliable sources, or otherwise not commonly accepted, this can be grounds for deletion of a category, article, template, or otherwise. Examples:
  • There is no consensus on how Europe should be divided in "North, East, South, West, Central", let alone "Northwestern" etc. So the following categories were recently deleted:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Northwestern European countries
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Category:Flora of Northwestern Europe
And so on. I nominated all of these pages for deletion myself. As you can see, I've got no problem deleting pages about "Western" regions if there is no consensus in "Western" sources about what, say, "Northwestern Europe" even means. (According to some definitions, it includes my own country of residence; according to other definitions, it doesn't). If there is no consensus on what either "Arabia" or "Arabian Peninsula" means, neither can be used as a geographical scope. It would just be ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT: Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. As long as a list cannot meet the WP:LISTCRIT, it is liable to deletion. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but I'm relisting as the article itself, its content, sources and scope, is still being considered. It seems like the condition of the article is in flux so more consideration is warranted instead of a closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tentatively agree. If we can reach agreement on the geographical scope, then pretty much all issues that I see are or can be solved. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of Arab royal families. I reckon that's us, right there. Would include historical royalty (Syria, Mecca, Iraq, Egypt) could potentially include Hormuz. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arab is way too vague and ambiguous. It can mean anything from geography to language to ethnicity. I know for a fact that people will start including royal families in North Africa from Mauretania down to Sudan and perhaps even Somalia and further south to East Africa if we rename it Arab. And I think it's very likely they will eventually include parts of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Cyprus etc. if we included the Middle Ages, which I strongly recommend against.
If the opening sentence should be maintained as the scope, it should be List of royal families in/from the Arabian Peninsula in the 20th century, and we need at least 3 WP:RS to agree on the geographical scope of Arabian Peninsula. Otherwise, it will still be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, ambiguous, subjective, arbitrary, and unsupported, and thus continue to fail WP:LISTCRIT. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Arab" is not really too vaugue. The article needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. Agree with Alexandermcnabb.
Vyvagaba (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming the article as List of Arab royal houses would help, we can devide them to current and former royal houses. Vyvagaba (talk) 22:06, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Arabian_Houses&oldid=1162112727"