Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahran tribe

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 Azd. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zahran tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

citations are not listed for information given Wikiusername100 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is not the currents state of sourcing, but the potential availability of (other) sources on which we base deletions. In this case, I could find quite a lot of hits on GBooks for "Zahran tribe" and even a book dedicated specifically to that tribe. In fact, one of the current sources does support the article and I have added a link to the online version of that source. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not oppose a merge either, per Eperoton's reasoning below. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no proof a "Zahran" tribe even exists as anything of substance. A source needs to be reliable and this entry is not supported by reliable corroborated sources. It is based entirely on one person's opinion. It also should be deleted because the subject matter is not notable and not of significance. It is just footnote worthy at most, not worthy of an article. There is already an Azd tribe article. Zahran80 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Zahran80's reasoning Spiderone 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Azd. Though the tribe doesn't seem to be very notable, it could have its own article on the strength of this entry [1] and some Arabic books I'm seeing. Aside from the one cited by HyperGaruda, there's an academic-looking monograph about the tribe [2] whose author is identified as a historian in the press [3]. That said, at present it makes no sense to have this stub of an article, when there's not even a corresponding section in the article about its super-tribe. Eperoton (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Without context, non-Arab readers will not get why this family or clan is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The provided sources are not reliable and for the link provided by HyperGaruda, you cannot even look in or buy that book to see what's inside. Even if this information was true, the page is not worthy of an article, and like Zahran80 said, a footnote at most. If people search Zahran, they might assume or think that others are or were part of a "Zahran tribe" and that is simply not true or even relevant to our current times, and this is much more important. Merging the article with Azd also does not make sense for they do not have any relation to a supposed Zahran tribe.700yuster (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources ([4], [5]) say that the Zahran tribe is descended from the Azd tribe, so merging does make sense. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 December 2016 (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.