Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gungal (tribe)


 * 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. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable sources to verify this.  Sandstein  07:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Gungal (tribe)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources for this in the usual places although, as usual, we have a ton of mirrors. Sitush (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is a thing. Curro2 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Here are the two sources used to create the article:
 * 1) The Customary Law of Rawalpindi District by Samuel T Weston
 * 2) A Glossary of the Tribes & Caste of Punjab by H. A Rose pages 296 to 297

Also note that the Punjab is in the US news recently as being the home of one of the San Bernardino shooters. Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Try reading WP:HISTRS etc and longstanding consensus regarding H. A. Rose. The sources you name are not reliable. encouraged me to attempt a collation specifically regarding this issue in the Indic caste context and it exists - by no means finished - somewhere in my userspace. I'm not in a fit state to find it now but I am sure some genius can - there is a way to access the root of any userspace. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The community has an article about Rose's book,, and the book is cited on multiple pages.  I don't see that your argument that we need newer sources applies.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the other source, Customary Law, the source appears to be scanned and available online. Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not able to add to the list of sources with searches on Google web or Google books. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm, having an article on Wikipedia may denote notability but it certainly does not denote reliability. See David Irving and James Tod for examples of notable but unreliable historians. The same, of course, applies to articles about books, and that a book might exist on, say, Google Books, is also meaningless from a reliability perspective. I'm surprised to see you advancing these arguments but have now found the draft I mentioned earlier and hope that it helps - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your essay and your reference to WP:HISTRS suggest that you only consider "solid contemporary scholarship" to be reliable. Other editors including the creator of this article consider the Rose source to be reliable in at least some contexts, and your essay doesn't suggest that the British were into creating fake tribes.  As for the second source, you raised no objection that it was unreliable when you removed it from this article.  This AfD might consider restoring the section on the Gungal deleted from another article and a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a vague memory that you and I have had this discussion about some other caste fairly recently, and that the article was deleted. The Brits created castes/tribes all over the shop, as also did the native people themselves - try Census of India prior to independence and Sanskritisation for examples of these processes, noting in particular that the British really didn't have a clue when it came to caste and arguably created much of the internecine mess that exists today. I really couldn't care less what the creator of this article thinks is reliable - consensus is solidly against them and has been for years. Would you object to a neutrally-worded note at WT:INB regarding this AfD? I don't mind you asking for input there. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in getting tied onto this AfD. I made a !vote, and you don't seem to deny that the references stand as verifying at least some of the information in this article.  You say in one of the edit comments, "remove: it contradicts the sources used, which show both Jat and Rajput claims".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not accept that the sources are even valid, so how can they verify anything of note? I am going to post at WT:INB because otherwise this will end up as "no consensus" simply because it is mostly one person who knows what they're talking about vs one who seemingly does not. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question If the Gungal is a fake tribe created as part of a British conspiracy, I wonder if there is an explanation for the now-removed content of this article.  Is this part of a current-day effort to reinforce the 100-year old British conspiracy?  Also, see Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a clue what you are talking about, including re: a British conspiracy (Hindutva revisionism?). The Raj sources are unreliable period. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with no prejudice towards recreation if better sources are found. Essentially per Sitush; I cannot seem to find coverage in reliable secondary sources. I would not judge those older sources to be reliable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 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.