Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rawalakotis

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. --Coredesat 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rawalakotis

List of Rawalakotis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

User:Mmena attempted to list this on AfD, but linked to the discussion for Aga Khani instead of List of Rawalakotis. I concur that it's deletion-worthy. Also, see article Rawalakoti with same content. Figma 16:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A1, no context to the article at all so we can have absolutely no idea what it is about. I believe we should that we should also consider Rawalakoti for deletion as well. Cowman109^Talk 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Del Not enought content and context issues... Tagged as such. Navou ^banter 17:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Speedy tag removed by User:Cryptic with edit summary "not remotely short enough to speedy; let afd run its course". Figma 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. I can't figure out what it's about. JuJube 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I missed something, but I don't see why this would be speedy. Apparently Rawalakot is a province in Pakistan, (whether it belongs to Pakistan or not is debatable, but no point in going into that). So Rawalakotis are (I'd assume) the people residing therein. That would mean that this article, if properly named something like List of notable Rawalakotis, would be roughly like List of notable Calgarians. And, indeed, it seems to be made up largely of names of (arguably) notable people from that province. That's not to say that it should be kept, of course - just that I'm not sure why we would speedy it. It's badly formed and badly named, but there is more to it than pure nonsense. --TheOtherBob 01:12, 17 January 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.