Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahniwal


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bahniwal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  12:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor Talk! 23:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable publications, with the added note that this article has managed to go five years without any. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have been unable to find anything in reliable sources that would suggest this meets WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a list of (real or fictitious) Jat clans of Punjab. Sources (if unreliable) do exist, so this is a term that readers are likely to encounter in the literature and come here looking for information. Uanfala (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion before, Uanfala. You were !outvoted then and should be now. We are not a repository of trivia, nor of what unreliable sources say. There is a long-standing consensus to delete articles such as this where the only sourcing is that from the Raj era. That is because the Raj writers knew bugger-all about their subject matter and usually just accepted the myriad of contradictory claims, stories and aspirations that they encountered. Their methodology was flawed, their expertise virtually nil and their ability to critique absolutely so. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 13 August 2016 (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.