Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdushum


 * 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 as per User:DGG and User:Alexandersaro rationales based on published sources and also per non-consensus for deletion. -- JForget 01:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurdushum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanity page, no real hits on google: http://66.249.93.99/search?hl=en&q=Kurdushum&btnG=Google+Search

Page was created by a new user: Special:Contributions/Alexandersaro

-- Cat chi? 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established. -- Dougie WII 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Every existing thing on wikipedia has and deserves its own article. secondly the Elamite texts being largely undeciphered therefore the elamite world is still unknown to many peoples especially to those who have a weak knowledge of history. thirdly the content of the decipehred elamite texts have been published in relatively recent time another reason why google has few hits for it. Alexandersaro 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the current spelling does not apparently have notable google hits. The more common spelling is Kurdusum, which gets more hits especially on google scholar and google books. Alexandersaro 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurdusum: 2 Google hits (one being a spam site). Bare mention on google scholar 2 google scholar hits. Once the Elamite texts are deciphered (per article), the page can be recreated. -- Cat chi? 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about here?!: 5 Google books hits! Alexandersaro 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I need is one web page on kurdusum. Doesn't seem to be notable and it feels it is a non popular alternate name for a place. We may already have an article for that. -- Cat chi? 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keeep on the basis of published sources. We decidedly do NOT need web sources, print RSs are absolutely sufficient--and arguably better. The articles and the books are more than sufficient. The language does not have to be deciphered tfor the inscriptions to be notable. The question of the correct name, is an editing matter entirely, as would be a posible merge. DGG (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep From precedent, geographical locations have inherent notability. Claim of vanity makes no sense, I'm pretty sure this wasn’t posted by a 2600 year old Elamite.  And when the topic is history from 2 1/2 millenia ago, one should expect that sources (such as the one mentioned in the article) would be books, not webpages. Edward321 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 12:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Edward321 points out, it's well established that places and place names, including those from antiquity, are notable.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability well established by Google books links referenced above. Phil Bridger 11:26, 15 November 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.