- 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. postdlf ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
List of Pakistani family names
- List of Pakistani family names ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indiscriminate list without any sources or context. In this way, no useful content for an encyclopaedia The Banner talk 20:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: certainly needs much improvement.
Deleting articles needing improvement is counter productive. Tag it appropriately and leave it be for some one to come along and improve it, give it context and format it properly. List does have a basic reference point of context from title and most of it includes existing wikipedia articles that have sources and are in themselves notable which makes it useful encyclopedic content. --
lTopGunl (
talk) 20:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please look at the article and you can see that it was already tagged in August 2011 for cleanup and sources. The Banner talk 22:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's
no deadline to make positive edits. If this was a list of terms not related to each other, that would be something categorized as 'no context'. It can't be deleted for not being
notable, so if it is deleted so that some one else can recreate it as a clean copy, the edit history will go to waste along with the collection that is already there albeit requiring work. --
lTopGunl (
talk) 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think that waiting for 38 months and then nominating for deletion is hurrying up proceedings?
The Banner
talk 00:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, although AFDs sometimes get 'to be deleted' articles quickly improved, it is not the way to get articles improved. What I am saying is, it will get improved when some one shows interest in improving it as it has mostly been updated by less experienced or anonymous editors who don't know about the content guideline and not that no one is improving it. If you want to speed it up, do so yourself. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think that waiting for 38 months and then nominating for deletion is hurrying up proceedings?
The Banner
talk 00:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's
no deadline to make positive edits. If this was a list of terms not related to each other, that would be something categorized as 'no context'. It can't be deleted for not being
notable, so if it is deleted so that some one else can recreate it as a clean copy, the edit history will go to waste along with the collection that is already there albeit requiring work. --
lTopGunl (
talk) 23:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as part of a conventional set of lists on family names, such as
List of surnames in Russia,
List of surnames in Ukraine,
List of Korean family names,
List of common Chinese surnames and more. Sourcing definitely requires improvement but that is not a legit reason to delete a list on a valid and legit subject.
Mar4d (
talk) 10:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- For starters, all these articles are sourced and have more context than this one. The Banner talk 10:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per TopGun. What can be fixed by editing must be fixed by editing, per our deletion policy. We have no deadline. That an article is in poor state is not a reason to delete it. -- cyclopia speak! 16:22, 27 October 2014 (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.