Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Kerman rugs and carpets


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Antique Kerman rugs and carpets

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article used as spam for a antique rug company, spammer been blocked, still promotional and non-notable Delete Secret account 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Autarch (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is most certainly notable, as one of the main traditional types of Persian rugs or carpets. To say otherwise is foolishness. The article is pretty poor, as are all our articles in this very weak area, but that is no reason to delete. I have moved it to a better title & added some material. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a notable subject to me, and not spammy. If the nominator objected to the link at the bottom of the text, simply removing the link might have been more appropriate than trying to delete the article. That link has since been removed by Johnbod. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Strong keep - this is not spam, and appears to be an article on an important area of carpet history. Lady  of  Shalott  02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per reasoning given by above three posters. A quick Google search shows plenty of sources that verify that this is not a "company" as the original nominator stated, but an old regional tradition. Esn (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the major production centres in Iran as indicated in Persian carpet. Article on same subject in 3 other Wikis. Racconish  Tk 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish  Tk 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources for this article all refer to "Kirman" rugs, not "Kerman". Is this a valid alternate spelling, or does this article need to be renamed?  (Or are the sources about a different type of rug?)  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. Valid alternate spelling. Cf. : "Variously written as Kerrnan, Kirman, Karman." Racconish  Tk 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- the article does not look overly spammy to me, and I think the sources establish notability. Reyk  YO!  00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable type of rug.  D r e a m Focus  08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moot: as Johnbod has Bến Tred ('destroyed it in order to save it') the article under nomination -- as neither title nor contents of the original article now exists. Should we also rename the A.R.S. the Article Nuking and Recreation-from-scratch-under-another-title Squadron? If somebody wanted to create a well-written & well-sourced article on Kerman carpet, I doubt if anybody would have objected, with or without this AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unfair ad hominem. Racconish  Tk 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? How about all this then? And kindly learn the definition of an ad hominem, before attaching the accusation to a situation that isn't even remotely related. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't take any offence at this comment, though sadly some of the original content remains. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article just had some things added, but most of the original content is still there. I don't see how the article's name being changed to remove the word "antique" and the redundant "carpets" changes anything.  D r e a m Focus  11:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. Let's just agree the article has been improved since nomination and proceed with notability examination, if still needed. Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: could somebody tell me why the majority of the sources in the article are from the 18th century? Whilst the age does not automatically rule the cited sources unreliable, it is not unusual for publications of that age to have a somewhat biased and truncated (due to limited communications) view. This is also problematic, given that such sources have little scope to analyse the "subsequent" (post-1722) period. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Answer from an editor having added such sources: they evidentiate the old notability of the Kerman carpets and the Carmana wool. Please do not infer from the existence of 18th century sources only sources from then exist. See a contrario Beattie's 1976 reference book, also mentionned in the article on Persian carpet. <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not the majority, & only reference one sentence (on the 18th century). The modern Muquarna source could in fact be used to expand on this bit. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. William Morris' "vase" carpet on display at the V&A dates from the 17th century and therefore precedes mentions from the 18th century. <strong style=" font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em">Racconish <strong style="font-size: 0.9em;letter-spacing: 0.1em" > Tk 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep because the article explains the kind of carpet, its provenance, and something of its history. There are sufficient inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2011 (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.