Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh


 * 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is basically a compiled transcription of a primary source that is known to be unreliable. It includes links to numerous other articles that may or may not in fact be the communities designated in the census. Basically, it is verifiable only due to a failure to comply with WP:RS. Without context, and with the links, it is effectively useless. A similar article - 1901 Census of Rajputana - was recently deleted for the same reasons.

For background relating to the utility of this type of article, please note Census of India prior to independence and also the recent deletion discussion at Articles_for_deletion/1901_Census_of_the_North-Western_Provinces_and_Oudh Sitush (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to 1891 census of India if possible. No need for a separate article. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge what? The data is not reliable and links are ambiguous. Your proposed target article will also be up for deletion when I'm feeling better. These, and many other articles deleted in recent years, are all the work of one highly problematic contributor who is no longer active. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I thought that we ought to have kept the 1901 article, but I was evidently in a minority. Yes, it probably was inaccurate, but it is the best data that exists.  The complaint about it being based on a  single source is ridiculous.  It is, of course, quoting a single source, because there was only one census report, not several.  However, I am voting to delete, because of the 1901 precedent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.