Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachak


 * 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   no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bachak

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No indication of WP:notability. Simple statement of existence and two references to prove it exists - 2nd one having been removed once as an unreliable source. Google searches not finding anything more. No articles about people belonging to the clan seem to exist. noq (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Jat clans. Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As that list would just contain a link back to here I don't see the point in that. noq (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would tell you this is a Jat clan, and allow for later expansion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well if this article is converted to a redirect, the entry would be removed from the list so it would not tell anything. noq (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible to keep non-notable things in lists, as in a summary article, though that depends on the list (see WP:L etc) and I'm not 100% sure that applies here. Someone probably needs to have a more in-depth think about what coverage these clans deserve: whether a summary page is best or most clans deserve their own article, whether most of the clan articles should be deleted/merged, what clan pages should contain, etc. Maybe this article should be considered in a wider context. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (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.