Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sri Lankan Moors

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. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan Moors

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

Non-notable cross-categorization. Anna Lincoln 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll wait to see if the author has anything to say, but I note that this was probably split off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a spin off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. There are only twenty red links while the rest are all blue and 8 of the red links have a reference.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the correct approach to a spinoff list, which is to include discriminating information about each of the persons. Please note that an indiscriminate list is one that contains nothing but a list of items under a heading, with no further information to discriminate (i.e. distinguish) between one item and another. However, it does need some improvement, since the intro says that this is a list of "Arab traders who settled in Sri Lanka between the eighth and fifteenth centuries". Although a 500 year old MP or cricket player would be very notable, I suspect that most of these persons weren't around until the 20th century. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an acceptable stand-alone list under the relevant guideline. As Mandsford wrote above, it is also not indiscriminate, although it could use some work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2010 (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.