Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandio


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Chandio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Pertinent maintenance templates have been ignored for going on 6 years now. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I just added 2 new newspaper references to the unreferenced article from Dawn (newspaper) of Pakistan. Was that all that was needed? I am asking a simple and sincere question because I am somewhat confused as to what is expected here. By clicking on the other tribal names in the already installed Baloch tribes template at the subject article, one can see that many of them are somewhat neglected articles. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need resources that provide significant and trustworthy coverage of the tribe itself.  Newspapers primarily exist to sell themselves by telling people things regarding what they want to hear about (while avoiding errors of the sort that will lead to legal difficulties), so they hire journalists who learn to write quickly on topics of public interest.  They don't generally hire specialists in certain disciplines, either to write or to review others' writing.  Consequently, we really need a different kind of source, ideally an anthropological or ethnographic book from a university press.  Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Nyttend that seems an unusually harsh verdict on the “Dawn” which is a long established newspaper of record in Pakistan. Yes, ideally we would have a scholarly source but I don’t think that’s a minimum standard we apply to all such articles. There’s another press ref here and here. There’s also a scholarly ref here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, newspapers are not generally reliable sources. They virtually never cite their sources, they self-publish, and they're almost never written or reviewed by trustworthy authors.  Moreover, none of these sources are useful either.  Who are Isha Books or Om Gupta?  Anyone with money can produce an encyclopedia: we need sources with reputations for reliability.  Taylor and Francis, conversely, is reliable, but we also need sources that cover the topic significantly, rather than making passing references in a couple of places as these books do.  Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, but you are being ridiculous, of course newspapers can be used as reliable sources, see Reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment well one of the sources I suggested is based on a PhD thesis, or do you not consider that reliable either? Given the nature of the topic and the number of tribes in Pakistan, I wouldn’t expect much in-depth coverage unless we happened to come across an anthropologist who has selected them for particular study. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any anthropological studies but I did find studies concerned with and . Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For right now, what is the official Wikipedia policy about the use of 'reliable newspapers sources'? Does it say for Wikipedia editors NOT to use newspaper sources at this moment? After these lengthy philosophical debates, Wikipedia policy-making staff should FIRST clearly state whether newspaper sources can be used. Right now, Dawn newspaper of Pakistan is considered a 'usable' source, which I have used in my editing. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * don't worry, this is 's personal opinion, there are numerous newspapers that can be used, including Dawn, ie. from WP:NEWSORG - "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Of course, it does depend on what the source is to be used for, wp:newsorg goes on to discuss this. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've spent all my professional life studying, and advancing the body of human knowledge, in history; is it any wonder why I'm getting rather annoyed when you're telling me that you know better than scholars how to evaluate sources? Go speak to members of my committee and see how they react when you tell them that newspapers are reliable secondary sources for anything, especially reliable secondary sources for articles in the journal that one has edited.  Or better yet, find me any prominent professional academics who hold such a position, and in the mean time read WP:FRINGE.  Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, i am not saying "i know better than scholars how to evaluate sources", i just pointed out that, for wikipedia, newspapers can be used as sources (see News sources - "The purpose of this page is to provide a list of links that can be used to research current events and news stories. It provides links to reliable sources for Wikipedia articles by way of connections to websites in various parts of the world.", and WP:NEWSORG as above), i am not telling your or your colleagues what to use for sources for the journal that you contribute to, or any other academic for that matter, as for WP:FRINGE - "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.", as the "particular field" we are talking about here is wikipedia, that allows newspapers as sources, not academia, it doesn't apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. For historical reasons. It can be further developed. Great tribe. Germcrow (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG from sources given above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2019 (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.