Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish tribes


 * 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. (non-admin closure) '''-- Cheers, Riley   Huntley ''' 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish tribes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When a page is 80% redlink and a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it shouldn't be existing. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble)  13:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: A list of ethnicities, I think, is not indiscriminate, and the redlinks are probably all potential articles, even if they never get made. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep : It's hardly "indiscriminate" and far less trivial than articles on Anglo surnames that one finds included in Wikipedia. Or lists of minor league baseball teams, or some other twaddle. The listings have ethnographic and historical significance, red links are our friends, and there are enough active links to make the list useful as it stands. It will no doubt have active content added to it over time. OttawaAC (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I don't think it's a very good list but nor do I think it's indiscriminate. I might have a crack at cleaning it up. Stalwart 111  04:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, please note that many of the blue links do not link to the correct articles, for example: Balak, Gardy. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. I haven't touched any of the links to tribes (or otherwise) - just re-arranged them into general sub-heading sections with a brief explanation of what is where based on the articles they link to. I'm no expert on the subject so my work probably needs more work but I think it's a little clearer than before. If you can help fix the links themselves (or the sub-headings or explanations for that matter) then please do! Stalwart 111  05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Have now fixed the couple you pointed out and a couple of others. Stalwart 111  05:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "Redlinks are our friends"? Yup, to some extent (though I don't invite them over for tea). But, do read this (from Manual of Style/Lists):


 * Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space.


 * Cheers. Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble)  03:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Funny, I read exactly the same thing in relation to this article too! You're right, of course, but I suppose my inclination was that having this in the main space might encourage the creation of the other articles. It doesn't really strike me as a one-person user-space type project. If we had someone willing to put the effort in by themselves then I might be more inclined to go the other way. But some team work is probably in order. Some have articles, many don't. Could go either way. Suppose that's part of why I ended up Weak keep... Stalwart' 111 ' 05:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think redlink policy is relevant here; there should be a list of Kurdish tribes on Wikipedia, whether or not there should be articles on every Kurdish tribe or links to them. A text-only link-free list would also do. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Bonkers: The problem with your interpretation is that this is not a list that "exist[s] primarily for development or maintenance purposes"; the list should exist in the encyclopedia completely apart from whatever function it may have as a to-do list. See this recent AFD for a discussion of that principle. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Postdlf: Ohh. I see what you're getting there. I guess I misinterpreted....


 * BUT I still think there is no need for this list as it merely just lists all the tribes, nothing else. If so, can do the job, right?  Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble)  12:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am failing to understand something here—how can a category be used to list pages that do not exist? Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not an indiscriminate list. It doesn't matter whether the links are blue or red, or just unlinked black. I agree that it is not duplicative of a category listing. --Bejnar (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2012 (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.