- 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 delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Tiwana
AfDs for this article:
- Tiwana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing has changed since the prior AfD. It still fails WP:GNG, there are no sources and this should never, in my opinion, have been closed as "no consensus". Sitush ( talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - taking back to AFD two days after the last one was closed - really? Giant Snowman 16:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, really. There is no reason to keep it and there are quite a few admins who would have deleted it as basically being an expired PROD. If this gets no interest then I'll (neutrally) mention it at WT:INB. There are a host of similar crappy articles knocking about and they'll all be nominated in due course: the effort of keeping them in order is disproportionate. - Sitush ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough - though a potentially quicker/easier route would have been to ask the closing admin to re-consider their close. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- True. I'd tried that in another instance and got knocked back (different admin). I'll have to trawl through my recent AfD stuff to find that one and go through the motions again. I'm also considering raising the general issue at VPP, something along the lines of "should unsourced stubs remain in situations where an AfD produces no reason to keep". Some admins do seem to keep as "no consensus", others to delete and the inconsistency seems odd to me. There really are heaps of these Indian surname/clan articles about, usually generated by new-ish contributors or based on lists produced by a caste association that do in fact merely list - no discussion of origins/etymology etc, nada. - Sitush ( talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your "unsourced stubs" comments - it might be worth proposing something similar to WP:BLPPROD (maybe WP:UNREFPROD?) whereby all articles without a reliable source are subject to deletion within 10 days - and unlike BLPPROD it would apply regardless to when the article was created. I'd fully support that. Giant Snowman 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is an interesting thought, thanks. I'd give them a bit longer than the 10 days used for BLPs but the principle seems reasonable. I've notified SarahStierch that I've re-nominated this article, stressing that I'm not trying to single her out here. - Sitush ( talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're sweet Sitush! But don't fret, I have no emotional attachment to the article or the subject. :) SarahStierch ( talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per discussion at first AfD, which yielded no convincing arguments to keep. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - simply not a notable topic. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete because I'm not even convinced it exists. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:49, 21 November 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.
- 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 delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Tiwana
AfDs for this article:
- Tiwana ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing has changed since the prior AfD. It still fails WP:GNG, there are no sources and this should never, in my opinion, have been closed as "no consensus". Sitush ( talk) 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - taking back to AFD two days after the last one was closed - really? Giant Snowman 16:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, really. There is no reason to keep it and there are quite a few admins who would have deleted it as basically being an expired PROD. If this gets no interest then I'll (neutrally) mention it at WT:INB. There are a host of similar crappy articles knocking about and they'll all be nominated in due course: the effort of keeping them in order is disproportionate. - Sitush ( talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough - though a potentially quicker/easier route would have been to ask the closing admin to re-consider their close. Giant Snowman 19:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- True. I'd tried that in another instance and got knocked back (different admin). I'll have to trawl through my recent AfD stuff to find that one and go through the motions again. I'm also considering raising the general issue at VPP, something along the lines of "should unsourced stubs remain in situations where an AfD produces no reason to keep". Some admins do seem to keep as "no consensus", others to delete and the inconsistency seems odd to me. There really are heaps of these Indian surname/clan articles about, usually generated by new-ish contributors or based on lists produced by a caste association that do in fact merely list - no discussion of origins/etymology etc, nada. - Sitush ( talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding your "unsourced stubs" comments - it might be worth proposing something similar to WP:BLPPROD (maybe WP:UNREFPROD?) whereby all articles without a reliable source are subject to deletion within 10 days - and unlike BLPPROD it would apply regardless to when the article was created. I'd fully support that. Giant Snowman 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- That is an interesting thought, thanks. I'd give them a bit longer than the 10 days used for BLPs but the principle seems reasonable. I've notified SarahStierch that I've re-nominated this article, stressing that I'm not trying to single her out here. - Sitush ( talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're sweet Sitush! But don't fret, I have no emotional attachment to the article or the subject. :) SarahStierch ( talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per discussion at first AfD, which yielded no convincing arguments to keep. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - simply not a notable topic. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete because I'm not even convinced it exists. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:49, 21 November 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.