Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir


 * 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 and redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). The consensus is clear that the content doesn't belong here in its current form, however there's also opinion that a redirect to the appropriate section in the princely state will be beneficial. At a later point in time, should anyone want the content to create an article that meets requirements, then this can be undeleted and draftified to serve as a starting point. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

1941 Census of Jammu and Kashmir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While census reports may have some use in an article about a particular country or place, WP is not a directory for maintaining such reports as stand alone articles for each state in the world. 1901_Census_of_Delhi_District is a similar census report and if consensus here is to delete the 1941 report, the 1901 should also be deleted. Atsme 📞📧 12:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's something historically significant about this specific census, it's just a collection of stats at the moment.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We keep population figures, but current and historical.  This is I suppose not the actual full census report, but a summary of the findings and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia . There is a very fuzzy line between including information about population based on census reports and including a summary of the reports.  DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that WP:NOTSTATS doesn't mention anything about census results, one way or another. But the two examples it does give of valid standalone lists include opinion polling results for a US election -- which would seem to me to be of equal or less encyclopedic value than historic census results for a country or state. I see we do have Category:Censuses in India as part of a vast structure -- which I've added it to this list. Keep . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
 * Weak delete. Can't find anything really significant about this particular census, especially given it looks very selective and incomplete. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is literally a collection of statistics with zero context. No evidence of notability and WP:NOTSTATS. No objection to userfying somewhere if an editor decides to add some context, but right now, it's just numbers. An encyclopedic article can't be just numbers. Note that the examples in NOTSTATS referenced by refer to splits from a main article. We sometimes split out statistics due to length. We never provide statistics as a standalone article unrelated to any other article with no context, though. Very different scenarios. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point, thank you. I've modified my statement above accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOT. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  08:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete and Salt Completely non encyclopedic knowledge with no intrinsic meaning for the average reader. It duplicates what is already available on the web, with no additional knock on value, can be easily generated in software but provides no value. No use to data analytic as it is not detailed enough as its a aggregate summary, why not use the full size one, no tools on WP to extract meaning from it for the average schmoo, and no intrinsic meaning, that you can see at a glance for the average WP reader, including me. So why keep it? It a column of numbers!. scope_creep (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, subjective list, which does not show a notable relationship to a subject. A list that is only a collection of stats. Kierzek (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge most important statistics with Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state). Kashmir is and remains a very controversial issue in world affairs.  Objective information about the pre-conflict demography can be useful in Wikipedia.  --RaviC (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RAWDATA/WP:NOTSTATS this is a pretty clear cut case of a big listing of raw information. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete-WP:NOSTATS apply.Fails WP:GNG wholesomely.I have strong doubts about the reliab. of the sources. Winged Blades Godric 07:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I understand the points of several of the keep !votes, I simply can't see how this particular article passes the guidelines in WP:NOTSTATS.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with the caveat that the introduction that be expanded to indicate why this census is notable. Is this the last census during the British India era? Are caste demographics still kept in modern Indian census data? Are there demographic trends of note that can be mentioned? I don't think that a table of numbers alone, without context, can stand on its own. But with some expansion...  caknuck °  needs to be running more often  20:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), which has a summary analysis of the statistics - the info most people would be looking for anyway. Those desiring more granular detail can go right to the source. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:17, 18 July 2017 (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.