Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalci

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. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nalci[edit]

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

Disambiguation between two people who don't have articles, i.e. not a disambiguation at all. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a proper reason to nominate an article - it is not a disambiguation page. There is substantial content about the surname and word in the article to justify it's existence, it is a surname stub - like thousands of others. There is a Wiktionary link also, giving further ratification. There is no person linked on the Nalband caste page - there does not have to be. Aris Nalci is a notable link. John Cengiz talk 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a disambiguation page, but an anthroponymy page, subject to Anthroponymy standards. "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created. A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list." Since this page isn't properly sourced, or sourced at all, the two Nalci's mentioned need to have pages of their own. I'm not saying they don't deserve pages, but it makes sense to write the article first. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just properly sourced the article. John Cengiz talk 08:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So in short, the article was incorrectly nominated for the disambiguation reason. It is however a correctly sourced surname article. Possibly a speedy close to keep would be appropriate as there is nothing to debate. John Cengiz talk 15:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument given for deletion does not apply. --Lambiam 08:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources applied by User:JohnCengiz77. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 18 April 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.