Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douldai people


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I see two different sockpuppets at work in this article (not sure if there is any connection between the two). But I'm going to Soft Delete due to the low participation in this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Douldai people

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ethnic group of people does not meet the the GNG criteria as refs are poorly cited and there is no information about this group on reliable and independent sources M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups,  and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify - author has been on Wikipedia less than a month and should be given the opportunity to improve the sourcing. I have suggested on their talk page that they do so voluntarily and work on the sources, which are not *horrible* but do need to be improved in this article about an ethnic group in a topic area fraught with ethnic tension. But inadequate refencing is not a reason for deletion. Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - All of the references are unreliable esp. given the prohibition on colonial-era sources for ethnic groups/castes/tribes/... TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CU note The editor who started this page, and moved it into article space, is the sock of a banned user. It's probably eligible for G5, but I see a fair number of edits from editors in good standing in its history, and don't have time to check to see whether any of them are substantive (or just moving back and forther form draft space, nominating for deletion etc). Girth Summit  (blether)  14:56, 4 January 2023 (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.