Appendix talk:Indian surnames (Arora)
Deletion debate
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This was rfc'd, and Mglovesfun subsequently deleted it. Makaokalani quite reasonably requested it go through a formal rfd, so I have restored it. However, I agree with Mglovesfun's deletion. This page is a worthless mess. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would need renaming, as all our language appendices are by language, not by region or ethnicity. So "Indian" isn't a valid title. Also the content is garbage as pointed out above. PS yes fair to RFD it, I just assumed that if nobody objected to my deletion of it, nobody cared. See (deprecated template usage) qui ne dit mot consent. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as long as we have nothing better to offer in Indian surnames. Any appendix like this, without sources and in wrong script, must be deleted in due course. They are all preliminary. But we have many other transwiki lists without sources, including 8 other Indian surname groups. Unlike most transwikis, the Arora appendix is edited again and again, by people with bad English which explains the mess. Should the Aroras be punished for being active? I feel sorry for them. Last year's RFD discussions gave the impression that very little is required of name appendices, and very few people care. So I stopped RFD'ing them. I try not to think of them, and when I do, something like Appendix:Slavic surnames bothers me more than these Indian sandboxes.
- Almost everything we have on Indian names comes from the Wikipedia, with the wrong idea that Latin script should be used. If we had a good selection of surname/given name entries in just one language of India, it might act as an example. Are Arora surnames actually Punjabi? But this is just daydreaming. Nobody has ever cared about surnames here, either. (Except SemperBlotto, but he's interested in everything so he doesn't really count:-)
- Must all name appendices begin by a language statement? Not having that requirement would help to make appendices for context not covered by categories, like the Appendix:Jewish surnames discussed above.--Makaokalani 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all you'd need to do is rename the appendix and replace the entire content with something usable. What is Arora if it's not a language? I assumed we could just rename it harmlessly if it were to pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Arora is a caste.I tidied up the appendix, now it's no worse than the 8 others. --Makaokalani 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, all you'd need to do is rename the appendix and replace the entire content with something usable. What is Arora if it's not a language? I assumed we could just rename it harmlessly if it were to pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Must all name appendices begin by a language statement? Not having that requirement would help to make appendices for context not covered by categories, like the Appendix:Jewish surnames discussed above.--Makaokalani 16:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am an Arora myself, I would say that this piece of deleted data is definitely referred to even today, see I did refer to it and I did come to know. Well a lot many surnames are there in the Arora caste, but which surnames are they? Try googling it, you will find that this piece of information which has been deleted,is the only available information; showing the Cast->(surnames) relation. If I could have any say, I would want to restore the information. Nishantarora (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)