Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rajputs

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. There was a clear consensus that the article should be kept. Those names that do not have their own articles need separate line by line citations and I have marked them accordingly. This is, however, a post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rajputs

Appears to be yet another virtually unsourced and verifiable caste list. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. This is practically the same as List of Nairs, which was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nairs. Coredesat 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, an unsalvageable mess like the others. Punkmorten 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, we have List of Poles and List of Muslims, why not Rajputs? User:Abdullah_mk
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 20:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this nomination based on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST? Kappa 00:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to know if Coredesat would actually like to delete list of Poles, or if not, how this list is different from that one. Kappa 01:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That list is also problematic in that it would be far better served by a category, but that isn't the question for this AFD. It will need to be nominated separately. --Coredesat 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • When are you planning to do that? Kappa 08:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It seems a harmless list to me. Su8ch lists are useful as a measn of identifying articles that should be written, even though it is a list with names (rahter than red links). Peterkingiron 23:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  See WP:HARMLESS. As you point out, the list doesn't have red links, so it's not useful for identifying articles that should be written. Besides, we have Wikipedia:Requested articles for that purpose. utcursch | talk 06:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, Strong keep with prominent personalities.--James smith2 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a harmless list. Prominent personalities on whom articles should be written, figure as red links, which is not a problem. Wikipedia is always growing, there are infinite additions to be made to the "most comprehensive" encyclopaedia. --Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 07:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  Like Utcursch said, see WP:HARMLESS. The question is what value does this list have, per WP:LIST? Actually there aren't any red links, but I guess the unlinked names are still useful for development, they tell peolple who they should be writing about and can be quickly turned into links after the article is created. Kappa 07:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  So what are you actually trying to say. Please be more clear. Is it a good idea or bad?--Altruism^{T a l k - Contribs.} 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The list is informative. I see no reason for the deletion.Kumarrao 13:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, "unsourced" isn't a good rationale for deleting a list of mostly blue links. I don't believe Rajput is an indiscriminate criterion for sorting, that it's impossible to define someone as a "Rajput" or that no-one would care, I think the nomination should have made that case if that's supposed to be a reason for deletion. Per WP:LIST it fulfils the functions of information, being well annotated, as well as navigation. Kappa 06:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Started cleaning up the article) On the other hand, it still needs a lot of cleanup... probably everything outside the "historical" section will need to be rebuilt point by point. Kappa 09:09, 16 August 2007 (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.