Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindhi names


 * 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. Keeping this one for now, looks like there is some interest in improvement. No opposition to another nomination. SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sindhi names

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These regional lists of names are rarely sourced and rarely region-specific in practice, especially given the extent of the Indo-Pakistani diaspora. There only claim to commonality is location but in fact that is a poor intersect. This list is a typical example and it would be best handled at article level - one of those occasions where a category without a corresponding list actually makes some sense. Sitush (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No doubt this article is in poor shape, some of the content can be attributed as Original research, but have you gone through this? -- S M S   Talk 21:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw it. I've never thought Sterling to be a particularly decent publisher and, well, the title says it all. Is the author an academic in a relevant discipline? I'd far rather see an article based on origins of names/tribal connections etc (as that source might do, if it were reliable) than a barely-controllable list that just about every passing anon will add something to. There is, for example, surely a difference between names that occur in Sindh and names that are Sindhi. I'm really not sure whether contributors have noted that distinction and I do not see the point of having non-notable names in a list, btw, even if they can be sourced to a passing mention. Having said which, I've never looked to see if we have Names of the United States, French names, Louisianan names or English names - I've always thought it best dealt with via a category on appropriate articles that discuss the individual names. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And French names is the way to do it, if it is done at all. That looks classy and useful. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep The nomination just seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CLN tells us not to delete lists to favour categories. Warden (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that I don't like it in its current form. That is because, unlike you, I have a reputation of preferring to have articles only about notable subjects. As per, it seems possible that this can be turned into an article about something that is notable - they seem to think that the source is ok. That was constructive and it comes from someone who happens to know something about the subject. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2013 (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.