Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayasrah


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayasrah

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article is full of hoaxes. The sources provided are not reliable and cannot be verified. Irrelevant sources were added to keep the article and prevent it from deletion. The whole purpose of the article is to promote and advertise someone family and for the purpose of personal glorification. Amb04 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  13:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see nothing particularly significant about this clan. The only notability claimed is descent from Mohammed, which is meaningless—there are thousands of descendants of Mohammed and notability is not inherited, especially after 32 generations. Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This nomination is a bad faith from user:Amb04 which is a sockpuppet for user:banimustafa (Look here). This cause article: Bani Mustafa was nominated for AFD, and the user banimustafa thought it is me who nominated it, so he keep tracking the articles I edit and nominate them for AFD.--  HF  ► 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. the user is now adding more haux to the article. Please note the fact that the majority if not all the information added the article were added by one and only one user click. He is trying to add haux about a sectarian conflicts between muslims and christians where the allged the clan played a role which is a pathaetic and poor try to gain sympathy. The clan did not exist during that time (1860)and it is impossible for the clan to exist as it goes back to a maximum of 5-6 generations. All the sources in the article are either irrelevant or they say nothing about the clan Ayasrah, or cannot be verified and some are simply fake. The user also added haux using a source which was earlier rejected in the discussion of Jerash article becuase the article copied the information edited by the user on the Arabic version of Wikipedia which makes it a circular reference (Please see Addustour article section in the discussion of Jerash article). There are tens of thousands of clans in Jordan and hundred of thousands of them in the middle east. A large proportion of these clans claims links to Mohammed (32 generations) as much as all the Arabs and the Jews claims links to Abraham, and perhaps as much as all humanity have links to Noha and Adam. I see no point of keeping this article as it lacks particlar noteability and it is full with haux and fake osurces and information. Amb04 (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above user is both the nominator and has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation which a CheckUser found to be "likely". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are not getting it. I have left my signature above to indicate that I am the nominator of the article for AFD. The investigation you are refering to is already mentioned above and irrelevant to this AFD as no sockuppeting is used her to influnce the nomination. Can you please focus on the context of the article and the sources used! The information provided in the article are written by one person and by one person only and they are mostly hoax. The sources used in the article are irrelvant, unverifiable or even fake. Amb04 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep for these reasons:

1. per WP:GNG. The sources in the article demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.
 * This is not right. I checked all the sources. Most of the sources are irrelivant, some are unverifiable and the rest are simply fake or invalid. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Ayasrah is notable because of these reasons:


 * They played a main political rule when they fought with Prince Ali the son of Fakhr-al-Din II, when he led a military campaign on the orders of his father to pursue Farroukh Sandzak Ajloun, Karak and Nablus.
 * These are hoax and not supported any source. During that time there was no tribe, which is called AYASRAH. I challenge you to proof otherwise. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ayasrah and inhabitants of other ancient villages in Jerash region were among the founders of the modern city of Jerash in the early nineteenth century.
 * These hoax depends on a circular refernce which was rejected earleir. These infrmation and the source was rejiced in the discussion of the Jerash article. The user used a circular reference which copied a wikipedia article in Arabic. These information was added to the article by the user himself, and therefore was rejected earlier and found unacceptable by an arbiter (adminstrator:Boing! said Zebedee). Please check the section "Addustour article" in the discussion page of Jerash.Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The name of Jerash was abandoning for the name of Ayasrah's village sakib which indicates their importance. (1)
 * First: This is irrelevant as the article is about your tribe which is less than 100 years old, NOT ABOUT THE VILLAGE OF SAKIB. Second: This information your atelling is nothing but Hoax. I have checked the book you used to support your argument here. The book simply does not say what you claimed. It only discusses a naming issue regarding the names used by an author who is called "Prawer". This author insisted using Crusaders names for many places including the name "Seecip". However, the book says that "Prawer" stopped using that name permanently as all other authors used either the Greek and the Roman name "Gerasa" or the current name "Jerash". The name Jerash was used by the ancient and modern Arabs, Ottomans, and also by all the westerns authors after the re-discovery of Jerash by the German Ulrich Jasper Seetzen in 1806 AD. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The Ayasrah received refugees from the Christians from all the Levant and they provided protection of Christians in East Jordan at that time, was the spark that sedition began in 1860 and continued for many years and completed the role of Prince Abdel Khader Aljazaery, and they declared at that time that any assault or abuse that would happen to any Christian, that would be considered an attack on the tribe. After that Christian families lived in Sakib side-by-side with Muslims.
 * These information are hoax and lies. In 1860 There was no tribe called Ayasrah. I challenge the creator of the article (user:Historyfeelings) to support these lies with reliable and verifiable resources. This proof my point that the article is full with hoax. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ayasrah is the only family in Jordan -as well as King Abdullah II family has a clear relationship with prophet Mohammed (1)
 * Again, these are all hoax and unverifiable cliams which are supported by irrelevant, unverifiable sources. These claims refers to 1400 years of history and to more than 32 generations. Most of the history of tribes in the middle east is vocal, and depends on superstition and folk stories and cannot be verified. The region witnessed a long dark age which lasted about a 1000 year; this continued until the 19th-20th centurey., where books and literacy were scarce. The modern books only ocuments these vocal claims. However, these claims are completely hoax and not even supported by these types of books, which can be verified. These claims are so popular in the Middle East, so that a large proportion of the tribes make similar claims, which does not obviously make these tribes noticeable. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

3. The article can be found in 5 wikis.
 * These wikis are the creation and the interest of one person only, who is in fact the creator of this article. This is irrelvant and proof nothing. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

4. The article can be improved more by time, specially about the role of family during transjordan, and note that the family village: Sakib has a rich history as well.
 * There is no role for the family, unless you are intending to invent one. The real history of the family and its role is insignificant. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

5.The nomination itself is bad faith. The above user is both the nominator and has been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation which a CheckUser found to be "likely". And the user Admit that.--  HF  ► 15:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The user:Historyfeelings (the creator of the article) himself was involved in editwars, "bad faith" practices and accusations, vandalism and sockepuppetry. The whole purpose of the article is marketing and self promting. This is clear from the history of edits. The only contributer to the article is one person and only one person (Historyfeelings). Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. It requires a good copyedit and some large chunks need to be cut out, but remember WP:MAKESTUBS! Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 17:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Beacuse of the hoax mentioned above this article should be deleted. Please note that I am the one who nominated the article for deletion. Amb04 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

this guy Amb04 is a sockpuppet of Banimustafa (look here) he just deleted my vote while he keep duplicating his votes. I assume his nomination is a bad faith. He keeps replying on any comment with lots of lies, knowing inside himself that this maybe will make an influence on the editors. I wish if this can be solved apart from personal attitudes. thanks --  HF  ► 23:26, 17 July 2012 (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.