- 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. A rename might be warranted given the comments in this AfD, but that can be discussed on the article talk page. Aoidh ( talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Khormans
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Khormans ( | 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)
Non-notable. By author's admission, better sources aren't available, and BEFORE certainly finds nothing. None of the three sources cited meets the GNG standard, and the external links provided aren't any better. Has been repeatedly sent back to drafts, but the author insists on publishing it. Fails WP:GNG, as well as just basic WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Africa, and Libya. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This article was draftified four times, it should have been brought to AFD after the first draftification was reverted. Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for nominating it now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment -- This appears to refer to an independent state existing 1300-1320. If so, having an article about it might be appropriate, even if the sources are scanty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG - draft is where it should have remained, but kept getting recreated without improvement, so no point sending it back. Onel5969 TT me 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The more common spelling is Khurman (and there are others). Try "Banu Khurman". Deletion would only reinforce our systemic bias in favour of stuff that generates lots of results when copy/pasted into GScholar. For example, there is no "o" in the romanization used by Brill for classical Arabic, so you cannot expect this spelling in any of their publications. Srnec ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I think the concerns are legitimate, however I think there is something there with the subject even if the current article is not the greatest. I don't know how much more information exists on it and I don't know who else here could really go pull it up, but the chances of getting more information improve if the article stays. KatoKungLee ( talk) 05:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep I’ve added three refs which indicate that although relatively little is known about this ruling clan, they are discussed in multiple scholarly journals and books. I think the title should be changed to “Khurman” to reflect the standard Arabic transliteration that is used in the sources. The current spelling looks French to me, which may indicate even more sources in that language, but I haven’t looked. Mccapra ( talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (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 keep. A rename might be warranted given the comments in this AfD, but that can be discussed on the article talk page. Aoidh ( talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Khormans
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Khormans ( | 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)
Non-notable. By author's admission, better sources aren't available, and BEFORE certainly finds nothing. None of the three sources cited meets the GNG standard, and the external links provided aren't any better. Has been repeatedly sent back to drafts, but the author insists on publishing it. Fails WP:GNG, as well as just basic WP:V. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Africa, and Libya. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This article was draftified four times, it should have been brought to AFD after the first draftification was reverted. Thank you, DoubleGrazing, for nominating it now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment -- This appears to refer to an independent state existing 1300-1320. If so, having an article about it might be appropriate, even if the sources are scanty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - Not enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG - draft is where it should have remained, but kept getting recreated without improvement, so no point sending it back. Onel5969 TT me 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The more common spelling is Khurman (and there are others). Try "Banu Khurman". Deletion would only reinforce our systemic bias in favour of stuff that generates lots of results when copy/pasted into GScholar. For example, there is no "o" in the romanization used by Brill for classical Arabic, so you cannot expect this spelling in any of their publications. Srnec ( talk) 14:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - I think the concerns are legitimate, however I think there is something there with the subject even if the current article is not the greatest. I don't know how much more information exists on it and I don't know who else here could really go pull it up, but the chances of getting more information improve if the article stays. KatoKungLee ( talk) 05:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong keep I’ve added three refs which indicate that although relatively little is known about this ruling clan, they are discussed in multiple scholarly journals and books. I think the title should be changed to “Khurman” to reflect the standard Arabic transliteration that is used in the sources. The current spelling looks French to me, which may indicate even more sources in that language, but I haven’t looked. Mccapra ( talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (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.