Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abusaria


 * 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. Y.Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 09:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Abusaria
According to Articles for deletion/Jewlia, I am going to list here a whole bunch of similar one line articles about Indian clan names. This may be a long list, we'll see... I'm leaving out those who have more info than just the one line. If I list some you feel should be kept because they have some special importance, please say so and give a reason, so that perhaps those can be excluded from the deletion. Fram 07:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC) This list is not complete, and many others could perhaps be added, but it will have to do for now. If I come across many others, I may start a new AfD then.


 * Achara (Gotra)
 * Aharya
 * Andhak - Claims to have ruled a specific territory, please evaluate individually GRBerry 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Baansi
 * Balachandran
 * Banaphar
 * Barjati
 * Bhadia
 * Bhaduria
 * Bhalothia
 * Bhullar
 * Budania
 * Chaitha
 * Chakesang
 * Charora
 * Chhillar
 * Chilka
 * Dhandhul
 * Dhankhar
 * Dhatarwal
 * Dhonchak
 * Dhoot
 * Dhull
 * Dookya
 * Duhoon
 * Dullar
 * Fandan
 * Gandas
 * Goyat
 * Hundal
 * Inania
 * Jaglan
 * Jajra
 * Janmeja
 * Jasrotia
 * Jatrana
 * Jhaal
 * Jhajharia
 * Jodha
 * Kadian (clan)
 * Kaler
 * Kaloke
 * Kharra
 * Khatkar
 * Khokra
 * Lathwal
 * Maitla - Has some additional content, please evaluate individually GRBerry 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nandal
 * Nalere
 * Nijjar
 * Panghal
 * Pannu
 * Peeparra
 * Pilania - Has a notable member, please evaluate individually GRBerry 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rajawat
 * Randhawa
 * Ranka
 * Roongta
 * Sajanke
 * Sarangdevot
 * Sunda (clan)
 * Takhar (clan)
 * Vanar
 * Wainse

End of nomination. Fram 08:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- Ezeu 09:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge all into List of gotras. Eluchil404 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Gotras are something very different. The absence of complete information and comprehensive treatment of such subject in wikipedia is a negative point. We should try to bridge the gap. Regards. --Bhadani 14:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow...I mean, merge per Eluchil404. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge if this makes sense. AdamBiswanger1 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all and add to List of gotras per Eluchil404.--Isotope23 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge; they seem no less notable than Scottish clans or Japanese clans. I would have no objection to the merger salvis datis into the main list of some of the smaller articles, without prejudice if someone wants to create a more extensive article on individual groups.  Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unless I've misunderstood the meaning of clan, I think it's worth keeping them around as separate stubs, for expansion later. There are too many to merge, although I would prefer that to outright deletion. OneVeryBadMan 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as original research, since no sources are cited. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - we have articles on Scottish clans, Hasidic dynasties, etc, so Indian clans may be notable as well.--Nydas 18:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless any are too uninformative to constitute stubs. Pseudomonas 20:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote for now - Does anyone know how many people approximately are in these clans? As it is, right now they don't provide any information that could get them past speedy deletion as a non-notable group of people imo.  Wickethewok 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At least more than 10 million, spread over a very large area of the Indian subcontinent, area bigger than many countries of the world. Each one of the clan must be having its own mythology and history. I feel that each clan is like an exotic tribe. If these micro-stubs are allowed to grow, I am sure that over a period of time each shall have a reasonable content and information. We have many pages about villages having 10 or 12 households, and here we are dealing with clans, each with 1000s of households! --Bhadani 14:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those figures listed are from the 1960s - so you're probably looking at somewhere in the region of 50 million people. I would guess that about a third to a half of Punjabis are Jatts. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into annotated list for now, more informative and easier to maintain and read. No prejudice against later recreation as expanded articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Merge for now. Perhaps at a later date someone might recreate them as more than just stubs.  Fabricationary 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as Eluchil404 suggested, or Delete all (except the three as noted above and below) for being original research and lacking enough content to believe them notable. Some clans/lineages are notable, some are not.  My comment in the Jewlia AFD referenced the recent Articles for deletion/Paliam where we decided to keep because one member of the lineage was notable, and have since moved the article to be a start for that notable individual.  These don't offer us enough material to test for notability.
 * Andhak Claims rulership over a specific territory. This is enough basis for a research, and if shown true it is keepable on the AFD:Paliam precedent.
 * Maitla has grown to 4 sentences in 4 sections, including a claim to a notable individual member. Probably would die as original research on its own, but at least it is stub quality.
 * Pilania claims a notable individual member. GRBerry 01:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand, because they don't offer enough material to test for notability, and also don't offer enough content to be a decent stub, merging into a list is a good solution. When our (currently somewhat distracted) contributors to content on India have the time, they can work through the list to build out at least decent stubs for those where there is content to include.  GRBerry 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as appropriate. These are real life non-arbitrary concepts which affect rather a lot of people. Think of it as family names or, to be more concrete, Scottish clans. Zocky | picture popups 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis. Plus, some work's gone into putting these up. As and when information about these is available to India-related editors, they'll put more information in. There was no doubt a time when Clan MacKinnon had a line or two in its article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hornplease (talk • contribs).
 * Delete all per Dbpsmith; as for Zocky's Scottish clans analogy, does that mean that these are unverifiable, original research and copyvios, like most clan articles are ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: These stubs regarding Jat clans are one liner at present but likely to expand in future. Each clan contains in itself history. Some clans have been recorded and some have not been properly recorded. If a stub is kept on wikipedia with request to expand people tend to expand them. It has so happened with some clans but they became good article over a period. Deletion will not serve any purpose. Hence these may not be deleted. Keep them allburdak 13:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all: I would strongly recommend that all the pages should be kept. To begin with a stub of few words is not a bad idea. We should respect the spirit of wiki, and allow other editors to contribute so that the stub may grow: Please see. The issue of Indian names and surnames have been discussed earlier a number of times, perhpas beginning with Articles for deletion/Awasthi. At that time, I had submitted: " Believe me, once deciphered, Indian surnames / family names / caste / jati, etc.  have mythological, historical and sociological significance and the information so revealed work as a socio-historical DNA fingerprinting. After all, the recorded Indian civilization stretches back to 500+ BC and Indian mythology and epics are even older.


 * Any article about  (Indian) surnames / family names have nothing to do with promoting one&#8217;s image or family name, or to do anything with genealogy. In the Indian subcontinent, people of different faiths, and diverse regions,  may have the same family name / surname, for example, &#8220;Choudhary&#8221; is a surname / family name, which a muslim family may have in Dhaka, Bangla Desh and a Hindu family may have in Lucknow, India.


 * All said and done, I reiterate that the fact remains that Indian surnames/family names have historical and sociological significance and they function like socio-historical DNA fingerprints. Wikipedia and we, the Wikipedians should continue to contribute to enrich &#8220;the sum total of human knowledge&#8221;, of course, conforming to the Wikian philosophy and standard. And, so all bit of information is necessary, so that a seeker of knowledge should not return empty handed from wikipedia. Yes, sure,  Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." I repeat the same again. Please allow the stub to grow. --Bhadani 13:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all: Please don't do this. Agreed, these are one-liner articles at the moment. But, all of us Indian Wikipedians can assure you that these will be expanded over time. What's more these clans are not exclusive just to India. Many of them are shared by neighbouring countries such as Pakistan. Deleting the whole lot would be an irreparable loss. Again, I request everybody to keep these pages as they are. They will evolve in due course of time. Thank you.Rajatjghai 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all: per Bhadani. Agreed that Indian surnames/family names have historical and sociological significance .Allow time to develop.Shyamsunder 08:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All  The idea of an encyclopedia is to have information it. Quite often, the information which appears useless to one individual, but may very well  valuable to others.  For someone to play god, sit in  judgment, as to what is ‘valuable, important, useful’, may be fun; it could also be, one could suggest be bordering on arrogance.


 * Many of these names are Jat clan names. For researchers like me, they are useful, for as one gets deeper and deeper into the history of the people, it is of interest where they lived, how the names evolved, what their contributions to society were.


 * For the descendants of these clans, these give a family history. Many people turn now to Wikipedia as their first source of information. To delete these lists, is telling someone of this clan, ‘heh, you are not important enough, and let us erase you from our public records. That is a fate, slightly worse than death.


 * It is correct these are stubs today. The idea of a stub is that it serves as a catalyst, to encourage people to expand it. This  approach is working. Expanding the stubs will take time. They will be expanded, as more and more people get involved.


 * I will strongly suggest that no names be deleted. People wishing to look for items to delete, may please take their focus efforts elsewhere. We should resist the temptation to play God. Ravi Chaudhary 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not play God and resent that implication (as I do the one of arrogance). The articles as they are could hardly be valuable to others, as they presented no information beyond what was already in e.g. List of Jat clans. They had no assertion of importance and were strictly speaking eligible for speedy deletion as an article about a group of people: Template:Db-bio. That would have been harsh though, and so I decided to start the discussion about these uninformative oneliners. The articles as presented do not "give a family hstory" (which is a category which falls clearly under WP:NOT anyway), and deleting them does not say "you are not important enough". The article has to make the case why its subject is important, not the other way around. If not being included is "a fate, slightly worse than death", then most of us are in the same position. As for the articles being stubs, intended to act as a catalyst: the Abusaria article was created in December 2005 and no more modified since February 2006. For me, it is impossible to know that anything more of encyclopedic value can and will be said about this family and others, and thus it is perfectly normal to nominate it for deletion, without playing God or having fun doing so. People wishing that these articles be kept should make a case about why they are important as per Wikipedia guidelines, not discuss the motivations of the nominator in a needlessly negative manner. Fram 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All. Many Indian-related articles have limited exposure online so it can be difficult for non-Indians (and Indians too!) to discern whether something is legitimate or not.  Many of these gotras are used by vastly more people than other surnames listed on Wikipedia.  I trust that the wiki process will eventually introduce more content into these articles. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep All. Indian names ar notable enough if others are. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: but other names aren't notable either, and every article that basically only says that "X is a surname found mostly there or there" should go. If the people who know more about these things claim that there is more to say (of encyclopedic value) about each and every of these family names / subclans / whatever you want to call them, I have no reason to doubt that, although the articles as they were gave no indication of that and hence were logical targets for deletion: so keeping them because encyclopedic contents (history, asserting importance, ...) will be added is fine by me, but keeping them because other family names are supposedly notable is a wrong reason, as that isn't true per WP:NOT. Fram 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that they will be expanded. All wiki articles grow quickly in size. I do not have enough familiarity with these clans to expand on many of them, but I have enough to realise much more can be written on them. GizzaChat  &#169; 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment to all discussion above I remain unconvinced that there is any reason to keeping these as separate articles at the present time. Merging to one list keeps all the content, and redirects to a list can be overwritten any time someone has the content for a decent stub.  These lack the content to be a decent stub, with the possible exception of the three I called out above.  If they don't properly belong in the list highlighted above, they may need to be in multiple lists.  But the fact that I can't tell what would belong where is evidence that the current content is lacking adequate context - and the one thing a stub must have is adequate context for expansion.  GRBerry 22:10, 17 July 2006 (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.