Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahrainean


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus, defaults to redirect to Beth Nahrain, already redirected by Sargonious. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nahrainean
This article is a complete fiction. The term Nahrainean is a new coinage by User:Sargonious: it receives no Google hits, and is not present in published works on Mesopotamia past or present. This appears to be the pipe dream of a teenage Assyrian. — Gareth Hughes 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Although I understand your frustration, Gareth, please. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete--Aldux 16:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree wholy. Here are your Google hits you Pharisee. http://www.google.com/search?q=nahrainian&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)
 * See above. Please, no personal attacks. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

2000 hits or not, it is still a valid article.
 * Delete per nom. Two thousand Google hits would have been significant.  Only two Google hits are likewise significant, but in the other direction.  RGTraynor 19:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since google just asked me whether or not I meant Bahrainian, I'm afraid my conclusion is non-notable. -- E ivindt@c 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Beth Nahrain, and if there is any useful, NPOV information, copy it there. Both Google hits are Beth-Nahrainian (or variations on that spelling), so it seems to me that Nahrainean by itself is a neologism. No reason not to redirect, though. Rigadoun 16:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Beth Nahrain, I'll go with the redirect. King Legit
 * Delete per above. &mdash;Khoikhoi 20:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete People already know that, I dont know how things are "made up" out of nowhere. Wikipedia is not a place to create an idea or an identity. Chaldean 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete A hit's a hit. There's credibility in this. Nahrainian, Nahranean, same thing. --Shaitan Al Mahdi 16:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Just because there's only two hits doesn't mean it isn't valid. Obviously those articles (2) do mention Nahranians. It's just mispelled here.--Yessou El Maseekh 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete The two articles though few and by one source are still valid. The website itself is an Assyrian Nationalist page. Peter Agga
 * Comment And ... here comes the march; the two comments above constitute the sole contributions of the editors to Wikipedia. RGTraynor 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More Evidence of the tern Nahrainean/Nahrainiean/Nahraini: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=nahraini&btnG=Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nahraya&ei=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&fr=moz2 http://www.google.com/search?q=nahraya&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
 * Comment - Eight extra hits, which in context of the links each and every one of them a misspelling of "Bahraini?" That's desperately unconvincing, frankly.  RGTraynor 18:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Erase This just looks like a case of a priest trying to molest a perfectly good article. I see enough evidence. If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit therefor I say save this article from the clutches of a mad priest.--Jihad Jones 18:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another first-time contributor. RGTraynor 18:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5q3zn2NENQQA.D5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2cXVjNTM5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=12cb444ad/EXP=1147466099/**http%3a//syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol3No1/HV3N1VanRompay.html


 * Redirect to Beth Nahrain - Looks like the closest thing we have here on Wikipedia. I'm also not 100% sure as to why Hugoye was linked to above. Hugoye is a prestigious journal, but this page doesn't seem to help this article's credibility. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Under article 16 it mentions NAHRAYA which is Syriac for Nahrainean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.7.70 (talk • contribs)


 * ... or Syriac for the more common translation "Mesopotamian," as the article agrees with. Either way, Nahrainean would then (arguably) be a duplicate for Mesopotamia or Beth Nahrain (I feel more of the latter) and should be redirected as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and shouldn't have every inflection of the word, or the two articles (since the content is so similar) should be merged. Why argue over the existance of a duplicate article? The point of this is not an attack upon your person, beliefs, or identity, it's to keep Wikipedia free of redundancy. If the article is merged or redirected, when someone types in "Nahrainean" they'll find themselves with the exact same information, no? אמר Steve Caruso (poll)</b> 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I DO NOT disagree with a redirect. I stated previously it was fine with me. I will go ahead and redirect and just add in a sentence in the Beth Nahrain article that Nahrainean or Beth-Nahrainean is the Anglicized form of Nahraya or Beth=Nahraya which is Syriac for Mesopotamian which is a broader term. Beth Nahrain means "the Land of Rivers" where Mesopotamia is Greek for "the Land between Rivers." There is a distinction. It could be even argued that Beth Nahrain should be merged into Mesopotamia with a statement on that article explaining the two terms.King Legit


 * 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.