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 redirect to Sindhi people for now. Any editor may restart an article on the topic with substantial sourced content. Deryck C. 22:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Also tagged as an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tribe certainly seems to exist, and at least one person managed to persuade a publisher that it was sufficiently notable to write a book about. For me, tribes are a bit like towns and languages. If they are big enough to have a name, I kind of think they deserve an article, even if no one has actually written more than a bare stub so far. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, it looks as though at best a redirect would be more appropriate, no? Plus that "book" ... its not clear to me it is an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the "publisher" more closely, this appears more likely to be self-published or at the very least a non-independent-publisher, rather than a scenario posited of "one person managed to persuade a publisher".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A book is enough for me. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has it not beedn added to the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably because the way that Wikipedia works is that anyone that thinks something should be done does it him- or herself, rather than asking why some other volunteer hasn't done it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would imagine none of us actually has access to the text itself. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sindhi people - unfortunately that book is absolutely the only source I can find on the subject. Generally even GNG expects multiple sources. Maybe there are other sources in Sindhi, but it is difficult to say. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here's another source confirming existence as a "rebellious mountain tribe", but it hardly seems significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. There is continuum that goes something like "family" – "clan" – "tribe" – "ethnic group" – "nation" (with, in South Asia, a side order of "caste"), and somewhere along that line lies a point where we can assume notability. The problem is that the words used can be very vague, with "tribe" covering anything from a few hundred people to many millions. I think we need a little more information to confirm where this group lies on that spectrum before entertaining a separate article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Size is irrelevant. What counts is the degree of autonomy. Can't definitely tell without the actual sources in hand, but if the nearest higher subdivision is the Sindhi, I think this is sufficiently independently notable in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DGG. I'm not sure I see the independent RS support for its notability. And if we cannot see that with the sources in hand, I'm not sure on what basis we keep it within our notability guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the current form as failing WP:V on account of being entirely unsourced. If somebody does get hold of the book, Historical study of the Shoro tribe of Sindh, Pakistan, and finds it reliable, and would like to write an article about the tribe based on what the book says about it, I have no objection to that.  Sandstein  19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep If some of the sources mentioned above are added, I don't see why this shouldn't exist as a stub. There is at least some verification the tribe exists. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Mar. A couple of points, which actually cut in opposite directions. First -- if the appropriate RS material exists, it is not even necessary for them to be added to the article in order to tender a proper keep !vote ... their existence is sufficient (though it is of course very nice, and helpful, for them to be added to the article). So when you make such !votes, you need not qualify them by suggesting that they are contingent on the refs being added. I know -- it is certainly not intuitive, and may not be how you and I would have viewed the issue, but that is the consensus approach at the moment.

As to your second point, most topics on wp must meet our general notability guideline (GNG) or some more subject-focused notability guideline. As a general matter -- with some exceptions -- the mere existence of "x" is not sufficient for it to be considered sufficiently notable to have a stand-alone article. See our guideline WP:NRVE ("No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists"). I'm not aware that the category "tribes" is an exception to this rule, though I'm happy to hear from others if there is a rule I'm not familiar with. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's a whole book written about it, and I have my suspicions that the reason we're not finding more sources is that they are hard to find, not that they don't exist. I think we can presume that if something has been the subject of a whole book, at least some other things are written about it, or even rehash the information in the book. Much might not be in English though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a book. But -- judging from what we can see -- it appears to be akin to a self-published autobiography. I'm not sure our notability policies and in particular our verifiability policies suggest that where we have such items, we presume the existence of substantial RS coverage, where sources are hard to find. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if somebody can put together more than one sentence about it then it can re-created. --Thetrick (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (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.