Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palari


 * 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   redirect to Sindhi people.  MBisanz  talk 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Palari

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A series of tribe-related pages that were created today. Each are single-sentence pages, stating only the tribe name and location of the tribe. Nothing more than glossary entries. Creator seems to have a habit of leaving these fragments around.

Also listing:

--AbsolutDan (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all as unreferenced and unverified. Being a stub is not a problem; Being unreferenced, unverified and possibly non-notable(?) is a problem. If someone can rustle up some references for these, I would support merging them all into List of Sindhi tribes or merging and redirecting to Sindhi people. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Sindhi tribes if these can be sourced as being such tribes. StarM  04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to our article, the Sindhi population numbers 55 million, so these tribes might be quite notable. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment sources, sources, sources... --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If it was a legitimate tribe, I would support keeping. However, I have been unable to locate any confirming that they are. If someone can, I would change my position. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I have been able to find a brief reference to them in this WWF document see . If we get sufficient sources, there may be a case for a compilation article as suggested by Linguist at Large. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability and verifiability are all in question Lets  drink Tea 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the sources to merge' or Delete if it isn't done by the next time this AfD should close. Capitalistroadster found at least something? If that source is valid then these should be merged as proposed by Linguist. If that isn't done, then nobody cares enough about these articles to maintain them and they should be deleted as sourceless. Miami33139 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete as per Miami33139. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without sources a merger would just perpetuate unsourced material. We should also consider under what criteria should be applied to some of these (where they truly exist) tribes, subtribes, clans, subclans, castes, subcastes or other groupings of family-like structures since notability standards for ethnic groups are handled differently to those for social or family groups. Alas, this isn't the "close case" to evaluate those. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2009 (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.