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. Improper nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanoli[edit]

Tanoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page is in a awful poor state. No source of any kind. Doesnt even look like a wikipedia article. Its very hard to read. It's other templates are also (IMO) a reason to Delete. TheProf | Talk 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC) :Page is also (again IMO) not notable. TheProf | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Just because it's difficult to read and "doesn't even look like a Wikipedia article" doesn't mean it needs to be removed of entirely. Some cleanup and work from an expert on the topic could turn it into a decent article. FusionMix 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:The article has been on wikipedia for three years. Its a pretty safe bet, that "expert" doesnt exist. TheProf | Talk 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are you sure that the whole content is not a hoax? No, there appears to exist a tanoli arab surname --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page was edited by the likes of

Sahil4ubest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Taj_Mohammed_Khan_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Khalidpervezshaheen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Afghantanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Pakhtun_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) he has a whole category for his sockpuppets

Tanoli_blogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Wikitanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Keep. The only part of the nomination that was anything like a valid reason for deletion was "no source of any kind", but there are in fact 12 book sources listed in the article. The only reason they were not there at the precise time of the AfD nomination was because they had been persistently removed by vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i totally respect your opinion and this is not a personal attack. Secondly, let me just defend my reasons for this AfD nomination. The templates placed on the page by other users are a fair enough reason for me to nominate it for AfD. The page really does need a mass clean up and i can't see anyone being able to do this. Also i can't help what vandals do to the article. I can only revert it if i see it. Thanks and have a nice day! TheProf | Talk 13:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanoli page needs improvement not deletion I have been working on the Tanoli page to make it look presenatable for wikipedia with guidance from Prof and finally it is in a presentable state now. Tanoli is a tribe of more than a few hundred thousand people who reside mainly in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, they have had a great contribution to the history of that area and have been noted for that in many books, articles and national and international documents. I have just today added a few more books to the article's further reading section. If anyone has doubts as to the notability of this page, please type Tanawal (the homeland of Tanolis)in Google Books and you will find lots of literature on the subject matter. So please this is an encyclopaedic sight and deletion of this page will not help the cause of Wikipedia. Thank You Wikitanoli (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article is now in a much better state than when i nominated it for deletion. This is not a nom withdrawl. However, i am now quite satified with the article. It still has a few issues, but it is notable because of the number of google hits. I've struck all comments i feel are now out of date. I now suggest that an administrator review the article and this AfD. This will be my last word on the subject. Cheers! TheProf | Talk 16:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This nomination for deletion does not meet the nomination for deletion policy of Wikipedia, which states:

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the speedy deletion criteria and process. For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the proposed deletion process. For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers. Therefore I think this stub for nomination for deletion must be removed of the page as the nominee Prof himself believes that the page has been considerably improved and it is notable. Cheers!!! Wikitanoli (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom retractal, and because the page has been improved to the point that it no longer merits deletion. Also, I have to say that the page was nominated right after a vandal reverted to a vandalised version --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2008 (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.