Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhangalia


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bhangalia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No references found for this single line article, does not meet WP:GNG. Found this one link -, and I don't think it is WP:RS Nasty Tunes of Sally (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I removed the cn and added 2 refs so the subject certainly exists and is covered in Indian history type websites, the article could surely use expansion by someone knowledgeable from the Indian articles task force to bring it up to at least start class. Also it seems a subsequently blocked sock removed a fair amount of content in April of this year so maybe something can be retreived by someone in the know.  JW 1961   Talk  20:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As another editor has examined the deleted content mentioned above and found nothing of value, it would appear that deletion is now the most reasonable outcome. JW 1961   Talk  17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the limited participation until after the second relist, giving this one more relist to ensure that there is a delete consensus.
 * Delete Sources are WP:SPS websites and the historical disputes that caste articles attract means that we should demand high-quality reliable sources for such articles. This sub-stub has little to no value and a redirect to Rajput would only be viable if we had substantive sources to declare that the identification was correct.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Eggishorn and nom. I concur that available sourcing appears to be almost entirely from self-published sources and not indicative of passing the general notability guideline; the significant coverage in reliable sources as is required by the guideline simply do not appear to be met at this time. -- The SandDoctor Talk 07:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The references in the article are not WP:RS so they do not verify its notability. I looked at the material removed in April and did not find usable sources. Google produced one passing mention, and JSTOR and NYT did not produce sources. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (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.