Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/‘Ad


 * 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. Monty 845  18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

‘Ad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May fail to meet WP:N and one source said,
 * "The great antediluvian king of the Mussulman was Shedd-Ad-Ben-Ad, or Shed-Ad, the son of Ad, or Atlantis."
 * Possible hoax? please also see Articles for deletion/ʿĀd. The Snowager -is awake  18:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is one of two related AfDs.. Compare: ʿĀd vs. ‘Ad (the subject here): different articles.  Compare Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (this one, classified with AfD category for Biographies): the AfDs are different. -- do  ncr  am  18:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to copy my findings here where they are more relevant: "I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies". My conclusion: no hoax, but not encyclopedia notable either. Delete. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep The king and his city are mentioned in some books from reputable publishers. There are presumptions that inhabited places are notable, and that kings are notable. There is no consensus as to whether mere mention in the Bible, Koran, etc confers notability but it carries some weight. No need to have articles on both the king and the city, but one should be kept, and since the city is generally known as "the city of 'Ad" or similar, keeping the king makes sense. Also, it's hard to Google, sources are likely to be offline, there's no evidence anyone has checked Arabic or other non-English sources, and Systemic bias. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The king is notable, although the article may need better sources and a rewrite. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The king is notable, although the article may need better sources and a rewrite. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: If nothing else, Wikipedia should provide comprehensive coverage of peoples!  Up with people! If there is doubt whether such a people existed, then say that in the article.  It is useful for Wikipedia to cover peoples that are merely hypothesized to have existed by anthropologists, which turn out later to be viewed as within some already-named larger people.  This happens for animals, too:  e.g. Cape lions of South Africa were considered to be a distinct group, and later argued to be nothing special. -- do  ncr  am  18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This is one of two related AfDs. If ʿĀd is same as ‘Ad (the subject here) then they should be merged.  Note: Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad are both going one.  This should have been one multiple-article AfD.  Of course if they really are one people then articles should be merged.  But if one is about a people in Saudi Arabia during one time period covered by one set of sources, and other is about people somewhere else at some other time, covered by different sources, then probably not, though hatnote disambiguation is needed. -- do  ncr  am  18:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.