- 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 merge to Shimashki dynasty. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ebarat I ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NBIO. All that is known is basic geneological facts, sources mention the name in lists, however there is nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Automatically notable, because he was a king. See
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges, which can also be reached at
WP:POLITICIAN.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
09:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Presumed does not mean automatically. Likely doesnot mean always. The opening section of this SNG states, "People are likely to be notable..." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria The presumption in this case is false, this semi-historical figure does not meet GNG or NBIO, or even have verifiable basic biographical information. Having a name in a list does not meet notability.
- The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. //
Timothy ::
talk
09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ebarat I is the principal character of P.Steinkeller article (quoted in the artcicle), and the central figure for understanding the relations between Ur III and Shimashki dynasty rulers. I am not sure what is GNG criterion - coul dyou please explain? Thanks,
- YX Ykhramov ( talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. //
Timothy ::
talk
09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Shimashki Dynasty. WP:NOPAGE seems to apply. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Kings are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: should be classed as notable as a king, although a lot more work needs to be done. Azarctic ( talk) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep Kings or Rulers are definitely notable. 188.240.216.10 ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)(
Blocked
sockpuppet of
Taung Tan)
DrKay (
talk)
19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article but not a response to the nominator's desire for some additional reliable sources. I know this is a challenge for historical figures but maybe some editors would like to take this on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Sure a king can be presumed noteworthy, but if this specific person were truly noteworthy, there should be enough resources to develop the article. If there aren't, then the subject does not meet
wikipedia's notability criteria and the information in the article cannot be reliably verified.
EmilySarah99 (
talk)
13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is not my area of expertise, though, if the article cannot be improved, I am inclined towards Delete. EmilySarah99 ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge to Epartid dynasty. Ebarat is thought to be the same as Ebarti or Eparti I, but so little is known about him that a standalone page is unnecessary. Details are better presented in the dynasty article.
- JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody in this discussion seems to have said what is wrong with the works cited in the article. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Shimashki dynasty. I agree with
JoelleJay's position, but unless our articles are wrong, the correct redirect is to
Shimashki dynasty, not
Sukkalmah dynasty, which was founded by Ebarat II. --
asilvering (
talk)
03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Elaborating a bit, to respond to Liz's relisting comment: this is a challenge because this king ruled 4000 years ago and left little in the way of historical record. We don't know when exactly he ruled, what his relationship was to the other kings in the dynasty, or any of that. That's why this is much better dealt with on an article about the dynasty itself. I note that of the 12 kings of that "dynasty", only one other has a wikipedia article: Kindattu. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah Shimashki right, mixed up my tabs. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is a rough consensus to Redirect the article but not on the target article. From what I can from the article, Shimashki dynasty might be the correct target but I want to see if that's verified by participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Shimashki dynasty. Insufficient material for a stand-alone article. DrKay ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I refer people to my comment above. I have no opinion about the disposition of this article, but it shouldn't be deleted or merged or redirected without consideration of the sources actually cited in it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (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.
- 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 merge to Shimashki dynasty. The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ebarat I ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NBIO. All that is known is basic geneological facts, sources mention the name in lists, however there is nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a consensus redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 08:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Automatically notable, because he was a king. See
Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges, which can also be reached at
WP:POLITICIAN.
Eastmain (
talk •
contribs)
09:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Presumed does not mean automatically. Likely doesnot mean always. The opening section of this SNG states, "People are likely to be notable..." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria The presumption in this case is false, this semi-historical figure does not meet GNG or NBIO, or even have verifiable basic biographical information. Having a name in a list does not meet notability.
- The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. //
Timothy ::
talk
09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ebarat I is the principal character of P.Steinkeller article (quoted in the artcicle), and the central figure for understanding the relations between Ur III and Shimashki dynasty rulers. I am not sure what is GNG criterion - coul dyou please explain? Thanks,
- YX Ykhramov ( talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The presumption this is likely notable has been challenged and sources with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth are needed, otherwise a redirect is appropriate if possible target finds consensus. //
Timothy ::
talk
09:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Shimashki Dynasty. WP:NOPAGE seems to apply. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Kings are clearly notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: should be classed as notable as a king, although a lot more work needs to be done. Azarctic ( talk) 23:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep Kings or Rulers are definitely notable. 188.240.216.10 ( talk) 16:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)( Blocked
sockpuppet of
Taung Tan)
DrKay (
talk)
19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article but not a response to the nominator's desire for some additional reliable sources. I know this is a challenge for historical figures but maybe some editors would like to take this on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Sure a king can be presumed noteworthy, but if this specific person were truly noteworthy, there should be enough resources to develop the article. If there aren't, then the subject does not meet
wikipedia's notability criteria and the information in the article cannot be reliably verified.
EmilySarah99 (
talk)
13:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is not my area of expertise, though, if the article cannot be improved, I am inclined towards Delete. EmilySarah99 ( talk) 13:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect or merge to Epartid dynasty. Ebarat is thought to be the same as Ebarti or Eparti I, but so little is known about him that a standalone page is unnecessary. Details are better presented in the dynasty article.
- JoelleJay ( talk) 23:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody in this discussion seems to have said what is wrong with the works cited in the article. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to
Shimashki dynasty. I agree with
JoelleJay's position, but unless our articles are wrong, the correct redirect is to
Shimashki dynasty, not
Sukkalmah dynasty, which was founded by Ebarat II. --
asilvering (
talk)
03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Elaborating a bit, to respond to Liz's relisting comment: this is a challenge because this king ruled 4000 years ago and left little in the way of historical record. We don't know when exactly he ruled, what his relationship was to the other kings in the dynasty, or any of that. That's why this is much better dealt with on an article about the dynasty itself. I note that of the 12 kings of that "dynasty", only one other has a wikipedia article: Kindattu. -- asilvering ( talk) 03:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah Shimashki right, mixed up my tabs. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like there is a rough consensus to Redirect the article but not on the target article. From what I can from the article, Shimashki dynasty might be the correct target but I want to see if that's verified by participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Shimashki dynasty. Insufficient material for a stand-alone article. DrKay ( talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I refer people to my comment above. I have no opinion about the disposition of this article, but it shouldn't be deleted or merged or redirected without consideration of the sources actually cited in it. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (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.