Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1901 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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1901 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a 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. Sitush (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a brief summary of key data, not a transcript. Tho less reliable than more modern censuses,   this was a  landmark of the period, and the data is the best available.I think objections to it tend to be political, based on objections to the misclassification or miscounting of one or another group. The 19th and early 20th British administrative and academic work on India has been much objected to nowadays, for perfectly understandable reasons,but thisis an encyclopedia that covers all periods. That a particular study of major importance at the time has its problems is no reason not to include it. We cover the entire historical record of knowledge.   DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG, we have been through this before. It seems that every time you oppose this sort of thing relating to India, you end up being on the wrong "side" of consensus. Your inclusionism is applaudable but you just do not get it in this particular subject area. The information is wrong: it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It is not encyclopaedic to include incorrect data, just as it is not encyclopaedic to mislead people into believing that our article X is synonymous with the mention in the census etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we've been through this before, and we will again, as long as you seek to remove references to information that was significant in the past. This is an encycopedia, and includes history. Whether I am an inclusionist depends on the topic: historically important surveys are appropriate content. ~The problem of people assuming it still valid can be solved by adding an introduction or criticism section. Question: are you aware of better sources for data of that time period?  DGG ( talk )
 * Proven incorrect information is not appropriate content except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The "extraordinary" are, basically, highly specific fringe theories that are discussed extensively and in this instance the connection is so remote as to be ridiculous. Adding an introduction etc is not a solution and would become immensely repetitive. This is an abstract/transcript of data that is known to be utter rubbish, sorry. If we allow it then we should allow transcription of every census (primary source) data for every area that has ever been subject to any sort of census ... and every political poll ever made, etc. It is utter madness and not at all befitting of an encyclopaedia. Anyone with experience who really thinks this thing adds value needs their head seeing to. However, I acknowledge that the alternate also applies, ie: I need my head seeing to even arguing againt this inclusionist nonsense and should perhaps walk away because this project is obviously doomed if such ideas prevail. We have a half-decent article linked in my rationale that explains the problems and, at a pinch, this article could be redirected to it. However, to do that job properly would require the creation of maybe 500 redirects and drifts into the stupid morass of retention arguments that often occurs at RfD, where the most tenuous connections are deemed to be valid even though the likelihood of use is minimal. DGG, please look at the contributions of the article creator and let them continue to reproduce whatever nonsense they choose elsewhere on the web. I'm fed up of wasting my time here, trying to counter the POV-pushers, the nationalists, the glorifiers and, yes, those who think just about anything that exists as a coherent sentence is justifiable. I'm gone, I think - it is increasingly difficult for me to handle this mess, especially when so-called experienced and "clever" people are so far apart from me. There are bugger-all admins willing to take on the Indic stuff and, frankly, the experience is not helped by admins (arbs, even) who really are clueless about it. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, but not because the data is wrong (we have many articles about ideas that were once thought correct but are simply wrong). Rather, because WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. It is reasonable to discuss major national censuses. This isn't; it's one regional component of the 1901 Census of India. By comparison, we have an article about the 2010 United States Census, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue in favor of by-state sub-articles that serve only as stat-table dumping grounds (2010 Texas Census is thankfully red). I wouldn't entirely be opposed to individual articles, such as 1901 Census of India (currently a redirect) on the pre-Independence Indian censuses, citing the aggregate "data" as well as the reliable modern sources that explain why those numbers are untrustworthy (at best). But that still doesn't justify regional articles like this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not misapply WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This is not so far from the canonical example of a "necessary" statistics table in that very policy, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012. It is of historical and educational value, and is likely to be useful to anyone who needs this information as it represents the data faithfully in a much more readable format. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per nom.-- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   23:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Of historical importance. This is not about WP:RS. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do what? Everything on Wikipedia is about reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misapplying WP:RS. Are you saying Wikipedia should not include articles about factually questionable/wrong topics? For example Blood libel, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Spring-Heeled Jack? An encyclopaedia is time immemorial. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. The article doesn't even say that the stuff is factually incorrect because the creator (long since gone) was well-known for a total inability to judge sources or even read around topics: they merely transcribed. We do have a reliably sourced article that explains the difficulties with all the Raj censuses - Census of India prior to independence - and this article is misleading in the extreme because it lacks such sources. Most reliable sources that discuss Raj censuses do so as a collective, not by examining just one particular census. We require that even fringe topics are reliably sourced, we are not a collection of statistics, and we not are Wikisource. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this census, or part of one, was indeed of historical importance, I'd expect that to be explained and sourced in the article. As it is, though, we only have a bare table of statistics, which is indeed what we are WP:NOT for.  Sandstein   07:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At best this deserves a mention (sentence or two) in an article about the nation's census that year, if such a page existed.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:04, 5 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.