Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames

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. no consensus for deletion JForget 02:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames

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

A list of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames, with no indication of why that might be an appropriate topic for a list on Wikipedia. This is more or less the definition of a "collection of indiscriminate information", as discussed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Moreover, it has only one poor quality source after I removed the other purported reference to a Wikipedia mirror. We do have some other articles on surnames, like Smith (surname), but the nominated article has neither that level of quality nor any discussion of the importance of the topic. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lists of ethnically interrelated surnames do not really fall within the concept of "collections of indiscriminate information". This type of information is hardly indiscriminate, and may be of particular interest to historians, genealogists, and ethnographers. For what it's worth, there are a number of similar articles, such as: List of Scottish Gaelic surnames, List of common Korean surnames, List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames, etc. Yes, the sourcing is not very good, but that is not sufficient reason, in my opinion, to delete the article. It would be easy to add a sentence or two discussing the importance of the GSD community, but this information is already linked in the introductory sentence through Goud Saraswat Brahmin. Tim Ross (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Tim Ross (which is why I converted the proposers earlier {{Prod}} to a {{refimprove}}). -Arb. (talk) 15:02, 9 January 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.