Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asharid-apal-Ekur


 * 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 Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW.Capitalistroadster 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Asharid-apal-Ekur

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Weakly Fails WP:BIO, google search only came up with 87 sources, most not related to topic. Tiptoety 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely certain that a king of ancient Assyria would fall under WP:BIO - he's not really giving interviews to teh media these days, or anything, so reliable sources may not be readily available. However, he is listed in a number of places,  (as well as others) as being a king - and I would say a king gets a free pass even if he did only last two years. Scholarly research may turn up more about him, but even if not, the stub is probably a good idea for keeping the timeline sorted. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not refering to WP:BLP, but WP:BIO. Tiptoety 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO considers the following notable: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." A king would be at the highest part of that. Smashville 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a bare minimum, all of the following criteria must be met in order for a person to be deemed notable:


 * 1) The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or Afd debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself.
 * 2) If the subject is living, the Biographies of living persons policy must be followed.
 * 3) The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
 * 4) * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
 * 5) * Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Tiptoety 00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The part of WP:BIO preceding that quoted above by Smashville says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards..." In any case an internet search by no means covers all secondary sources on recondite topics like this. Johnbod 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep Kings of notable empires are pretty much automatically notable in my opinion. 129.89.68.218 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per those above - a ridiculous nomination. If there really is a problem under WP policy with this article, which I very much doubt but can't be bothered to research, then the policy should be changed. Johnbod 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Smashville for tracking down the relevant bit of policy. Johnbod 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep per above. Speedy keep, even. 87 g-hits are a lot for someone dead 3000 years.  Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim   21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think subject does meet WP:BO   Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim   21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy, Strongest Keep. He was the recognized king of a recognized empire. We consider most pretenders to thrones notable...so we would definitely consider an actual king notable. (Lack of) Google hits should never be used as an argument for deletion. Smashville 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You cannot have redlinks in lineages of kings of major ancient empires. LessHeard vanU 22:59, 25 October 2007 (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.