Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Urdu language book publishing companies

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 no consensus. Sandstein 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu language book publishing companies[edit]

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

Of no informational value, spam bait, categories should be used instead. kashmiri ^TALK 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed: spam-bait, and it appears to be proliferating already.-- Pax 11:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP is not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable index of articles per WP:LISTPURP grouped by a significant shared feature. All we have so far are completely invalid arguments for deletion. We do not delete articles just because editors may add inappropriate content, such as spam (see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:NOTCLEANUP), and regardless it's laughable to think that the addition of a half dozen nonnotable listings over a three and a half year history (since removed by the nominator) pose too big a problem for us to monitor. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It clearly does as we've had spam here since 2013 [1] [2] that I removed only yesterday, so fails the maintenance criteria. The list also badly fails WP:LC for another reason: it is not realistic to list even a fraction of all the companies in India (1.3 billion people) and Pakistan (190 million) which have ever printed something in Urdu (lists of infinite items are not allowed). kashmiri ^TALK 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, spam since 2013? It's a wonder our servers are still running! I kid, but seriously that's not a deletion argument at all nor even a shocking state of article disrepair compared to what we routinely encounter. And no, it isn't realistic to list all the companies in India and Pakistan which have ever printed something in Urdu. Thankfully, we are not the yellow pages, but instead can and do limit such lists of companies to only notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "we can"??? Can you show how this article was "maintained" since 2013? How got there are no large publishers here, like Penguin Books, HarperCollins, etc.? The article has nil informational value and is purely a spam bait. As such, it is not maintained nor maintainable. kashmiri ^TALK 10:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've now tacked on WP:NOEFFORT and WP:TOOLITTLE to your earlier WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:CLEANUP "arguments". Keep going, maybe you'll get to WP:NOBODYREADSIT, or simply say it's WP:UGLY.
You just helped maintain it by removing those entries. And if they're restored, we revert again. If it develops into edit warring or involves multiple IPs/editors, we may block editors or protect the article. You've been here long enough to be familiar with that process, and with WP:ATD (and you certainly can't argue this is a "severe case" alluded to in that policy section). This is hardly the only list of companies we have, and most at one time or another face spam and we deal with it when we detect it. We do not delete articles because of fixable problems. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think it's possible to say that there should be a place to put these publishers. If spam and names without articles are a problem, then the obvious thing to do is convert it to a category (WP:AOAC). On the other hand, red links are listed as an advantage of lists because they show articles that need to be created (WP:AOAL). Advantages and disadvantages to both. We have a long List of English-language book publishing companies, and they are all blue links. List of Romanian-language publishers is almost all red links. Usually we group publishers by country, but Urdu is both India and Pakistan, so do we need something by language? Or is it enough to list publishers in India and Pakistan? – Margin1522 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmiri's comment above that many worldwide publishers such as Penguin may qualify for this list is a good reason why this wouldn't be synonymous with the country lists (even if there aren't many notable ones in India that don't publish in Urdu). And WP:CLN notwithstanding, the inclusion of worldwide publishers is also the best argument against making this into a category, as we'd end up with the largest publishers categorized by every major language on earth (see WP:OCAT). postdlf (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly legitimate article subject, no difficulty to improve the article. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No appropriate rationale for deletion, has fixable issues. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:42, 25 January 2015 (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.