Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahas ibn Abu al-Tayyib

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 delete. The issue here is verifiability (not notability). The cited sources have been challenged in some detail; it is alleged that the cited sources do not support the article text. To rebut that allegation, the "keep" side would have to show how the sources do in fact support this content. This has not been done here, which means that WP:V, a core policy, mandates deletion. Sandstein 12:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wahas ibn Abu al-Tayyib

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not even verify that this person existed. A Google search turns up only one hit, a different Wikipedia article. If there are alternate spellings for his name, then we need these to do a search for legitimate references. This spelling of his name is a complete dead end. A loose necktie (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has seven refs to scholarly works. Is the nominator claiming that these refs are not valid? If so, can they explain please? If there is no claim that the existing refs are inadequate, then I don't see the basis for this nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- The article has several references, apparently to scholarly works. The fact that the nom cannot find these on-line (which seems to be the basis of nom's complaint) is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is bullshit. Compare Abu Tayeb Daoud bin Abdul Rahman and Hamzah ibn Wahas. Every one I checked failed verification. I don't doubt that these people existed (see de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste), but the articles as they stand are not worth keeping. بندر, can you explain why you are citing a source "retrieved 12 September 2016" before you even joined WP? Srnec (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources for example (أمراء مكة عبر عصور الإسلام، لعبدالفتاح راوة), but it was mentioned with simple information, as it is a very old era. I do not know the reason for the deletion, a historical figure has no interest in me in that. Regarding (see de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste) you need to change like the Arabic Wikipedia. Regarding "retrieved 12 September 2016", This reference was cited to confirm that the alashraf Sulaymani ruled Mecca for a period of time. I think that the candidate of the article for discussion of deletion does not know well the reason for deleting the article, perhaps he is not familiar with Islamic history. بندر (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of the question about the dated citation: Srnec is asking how it is that on 17 July 2022 you came to incorporate and cite material from a source you label as not having been consulted since 16 September 2016 - short of you possessing a photographic memory, it would seem to indicate that the citation was simply copy/pasted from another page, perhaps without even looking at the source itself. (It is disconcerting that there are 17 pages that contain this source/retrieval date, most having been created or added by you more recently than the Sep 2016 date claimed. A retrieval date is generally superfluous for such a source, because unlike online sources, something formally fixed to paper does not subsequently change, but here it is a red-flag for what is at best sloppy copy/paste citation.) Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to update the list of the princes of Mecca de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste, without logic, the grandfather rules and is from a certain faction of the "alashraf Sulaymani", and after him two personalities from another faction, and then the grandson comes after that. This is illogical, as there was a permanent conflict over the rule of Mecca and Hijaz during the Fatimid Caliphate. بندر (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real indication of individual notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.