Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darzada


 * 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 redirect to List of Baloch tribes.  Sandstein  10:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Darzada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Zero sources, a Google search yields nothing but wikipedia mirrors. Is probably invented by the creator. Although there may be easier ways to solve this, I'm calling for an AfD.--FFS19 (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Nominator (a blocked sock) misses that the tribe does exist as evidenced by mentions in several books published before the Wikipedia article, making it clear that the article isn't a hoax. However, the article is near illegible to me, so I have cut it down to one sentence. Tribes such as these generally have articles, so I assume they are generally notable, but with as little information as is left in the article, a redirect to List of Baloch tribes might also be worth considering. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Baloch tribes. This isn't a hoax but it isn't a notable tribe either. The references given by  don't even agree that it is a tribe at all and the text is unreferenced.  There has been a great deal of editing between the AfD nomination and now but the references introduced during that time failed WP:V in that they are not actually about this subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when does something fail verifiability just because it isn't solely or directly about the subject? It's also a mischaracterization of the article to say 1) that the text is unreferenced (there are three references) and 2) that they " don't even agree that it is a tribe at all". While the OUP source calls it a "sub-group", that's not particularly different from our definition of Tribe ("a category of human social group"), and there's no source that disagrees with the characterization as a tribe. While I'm not myself qualified to determine whether it's a tribe or not, redirecting the article to List of Baloch tribes would still imply that the topic is a tribe... You'll note that I haven't voted keep, and I'd support redirecting as an outcome, but I just don't understand what is trying to say here. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't saying the three Goggle Books links you offered failed WP:V but that some other supposed sources added and since removed from the article did. Those links were either not about Darzada or, in one case, not about tribal groups at all but just a handwave at a general reference. The three links you offered were also general but at least mentioned Darzada although two were actually the same reference, being two versions of the USGPO country guide. Those listed Darzada as one of many tribes but gave no further information.  The other source called it a subgroup of Baloch but it is impossible from context to discern whether "subgroup" means a group with a distinct identity or just people who have a function within the tribe and the reference doesn't give that information. For those reasons I don't think that there is enough information available to consider it a notable distinct tribal identity. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for responding so promptly, that makes perfect sense now-- mentally face-palming about that duplicate source! Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:58, 21 July 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.