Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political families of Pakistan

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 but evaluate the names on the list (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political families of Pakistan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has deteriorated into the most egregrious listing of assorted non-notables, and relatives and friends of editors, and is now an embarrassment to Wikipedia and has reached the stage where it is impossible to maintain WP:MOS or any other Wikipedia policy or convention. Almost forgot that for most articles we have a habit of suggesting that references might be useful for an article mentioning living people (presumably some are unless they have been invented) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest deleting all those entries (names) that both: a) lack articles, and b) lack independent refs. Per wp:LISTPEOPLE. And then see what is left.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with that thought; after that, we should also check to make sure that the people left are actually family members; just because they share the same last name doesn't necessarily make them closely related. A quick look through seems to show that there will be enough left for a valid article. Also, a quick glance at the history seems to show an awful lot of IP additions; it may well be that once this is cleaned up, we can 1) semi-protect the article, and 2) add an edit notice to both the article and talk page that clearly indicates that the page requires all listed people to have an article or a ref verifying the office held and that the person is related to others in the same family (try editing List of shopping malls in India for an example). Assuming this is kept, I am happy to help with the editing, although it may take me a bit to get to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Epeefleche's argument. All unsourced entries need to be removed. Mar4d (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It is well known that Pakistan politics has been influenced by the feudal aristocracy of the Punjab - see Contemporary problems of Pakistan, for example. AFD is not cleanup and has nothing to offer in this case and so this should be closed per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Warden (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems sufficiently notable, and -- as pointed out -- AFD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article needs cleanup, but this is not the place for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not delete-worthy, the article needs a lot of clean-up. Suraj T 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.