Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of Sheba's Palace (Sumharam)

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 Khor Rori. Sandstein 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Sheba's Palace (Sumharam)[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The source in the Wikipedia article (an outdated Bradt Travel Guide) says the archeological site Sumhuram or Khor Rori itself is known as the Queen of Sheba's Palace, but the Wikipedia article claims the site contains the ruin of the Queen of Sheba's Palace, which is apparently a misinterpretation of the original source. The archaeological site itself was certainly not the Queen of Sheba's Palace, because this theory is not even mentioned by any reliable academic source (on archaeology or history, not on anything else like tourism), and the site is universally accepted as the ruin of a port city instead of a palace.

The page should be redirected to Khor Rori at best if deletion is not agreed on. I'm not even sure whether such a redirection page should be kept, because I can only find seven publications using this name: three outdated guide books (The Gulf Handbook: A Guide for Businessmen and Visitors [1979], Oman: A MEED Practical Guide [1981], and the old editions of the Bradt Travel Guide [2006/2010/2014; the 2017 edition has abandoned this name]), a book on tourism, a book on politics, a book on geology, and an article on nature. I think it is very safe to say this name is rarely used, unless more publications using this name are provided.--Neux-Neux (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source given in the article, which is a tourist guide book, seems reliable to me in asserting that the archeological site is known as "Queen of Sheba's Palace". That does not mean it actually was the palace of a queen of Sheba; it is what it is called though. If you can find a source confirming your view that it is not related to a queen of Sheba, by all means add that. Anyhow, it seems wp:ITSATOURISTATTRACTION applies based on the discussion in the tourist guide book, and it is a real place and a real archeological site. --Doncram (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the source in that article (an outdated Bradt Travel Guide) says the archeological site Sumhuram or Khor Rori is known as the Queen of Sheba's Palace, the article should be redirected to Khor Rori at best if deletion is not agreed on. The Wikipedia article's claim that the Queen of Sheba's Palace is a ruined palace at the archaeological site is apparently misinterpretation. I'm not even sure whether such a redirection page should be kept, because mainstream tourist guides just don't call the site "the Queen of Sheba's Palace". Lonely Planet and Rough Guides don't call it that, and even the latest Bradt Travel Guide doesn't call it that any more (the editors certainly have some valid reasons to change the content).--Neux-Neux (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khor Rori, as an uncommon nickname for the same site. Queen of Sheba's Palace is current a redirect to Dungur but should probably be a disambiguation page linking to both. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose creating the disambiguation page, because this name is not only academically non-existent, but also rarely used in tourism — even the latest edition of the original source cited in the article abandons this name.--Neux-Neux (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not quite true, it's occasionally used in academic literature alongside guide books etc. It doesn't matter that such usage is rare or dated, because redirects (and by extension disambiguation pages) are cheap. Having a disambiguation page just helps readers who search for "Queen of Sheba's Palace" find the site they're looking for, which apparently could be either Dungur or Khor Rori; it doesn't imply any scientific validity to the name/interpretation. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I mean academic literature on history or archaeology. Literature on other subjects is not considered to be academic for an archaeological site. In addition, your search results do not really reflect its uses in literature, because many of them mention neither Khor Rori nor Sumhuram. Even if proper key words are used, many results do not even mention the Queen of Sheba's Palace. The only three guide books I find that mention this name are The Gulf Handbook: A Guide for Businessmen and Visitors (1979), Oman: A MEED Practical Guide (1981), and the outdated Bradt Travel Guides (2006/2010/2014). Besides these outdated guide books, the only four publications I find that refer to Khor Rori as the Queen of Sheba's Palace are on tourism, politics, nature and geology, but none is on history or archaeology. I think it is very safe to say this name is rarely used, unless you can provide more publications using this name.--Neux-Neux (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Literature on other subjects is not considered to be academic for an archaeological site – huh? Says who? Heritage and tourism studies are huge fields that both concern themselves with archaeological sites. Like I said, it doesn't matter if the name is rare or dated, because we're only talking about retaining a redirect, not keeping the article. Here are some academic sources that use it (taken from the search I already linked): [1][2][3]. But the three guide books you've mentioned are already enough. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Joe Roe. The identification of this site with the Queen of Sheba is an unproven theory, which might be mentioned in the course of an article, but not in the title. Where Sheba was is a matter of academic debate; this title begs the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be an academic debate whether this site is related to the Queen of Sheba. However, it is never an academic debate whether the site was the Queen of Sheba's Palace, because it is never mentioned by any academic work on history or archaeology, and the site is universally accepted as the ruin of an ancient port city.--Neux-Neux (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not uncommon for archaeological sites to have fanciful/mythological nicknames. For example, Giants' Ring redirects to Stonehenge. That doesn't imply that there's any academic debate on whether Stonehenge was built by giants. It's just a name. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (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.