Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jandral


 * 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 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Jandral

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not at all a notable subject, completely fails WP:GNG. No references to verify the subject's notability. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sourcing problems aside, Indian caste names should be notable per se in my opinion. — kashmiri  TALK  16:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - All these caste name related pages are just of 3 to 4 lines or maximum or paragraph or so. There are also no references available to present the information. If needed for the names to be recorded in the encyclopedia. All such articles can be put under an article something like List of India castes or something like that. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  14:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the argument "Indian caste names should be notable per se" is completely arbitrary. Just having a caste name here, without references or any reason to establish notability, is a perfect example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't a directory, of caste names or anything else. Rockypedia (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's actually something that deserves a RfC - just as every secondary school is inherently notable per WP:NSCHOOL, every village in the world is inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, etc. Will to it in spare time, unless you feel like asking this at WP:INDIA. — kashmiri  TALK  11:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm only speaking in terms of this one article - until there's a Wikipedia policy that states every caste name is inherently notable (is there? I don't know), this article should be deleted. If an RfC results in a directive that every caste name is notable, then of course this can always be recreated. Rockypedia (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:GNG - Subject is not supported by significant reliable sources. I could not find any decent online sources using a Google search. -- Taketa (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking sources (at least, I cannot find them with search terms given on page), with no prejudice to re-creation if an editor brings sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Just another Indian name. No sources discussing it and nothing even to indicate that it is a caste. There were ca. 1900 castes recorded in 1901, cf 4635 in the 1990s - people just create them out of thin air for self-interested socio-political reasons. It wouldn't surprise me if they use Wikipedia as a means of validating that process. See Sanskritisation, for example. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a list. This options is currently being discussed at Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Such a redirect would require at least some sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An older version of the article did include a source. Uanfala (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, only but only 1, and it is to a 1915 book with a bit of a reputation (that book, Punjabi Musalmans)  for offering the author's idiosyncratic opinions.  Asserting that an ethnic group or clan is notable requires stronger sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were asserting it were notable, I wouldn't be !voting redirect, would I? Linking again to the discussion: Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have. It doesn't change the fact that there need to be at least some RS (reliable sources) before we can consider a redirect.  I do not see such sources for Jandral. ( I searched on Jandral + Punjab) The effective way to argue for a redirect is simply to find sources (preferably scholarly sources, well-regarded news media, or well-respected books).  Without such sources, we cannot keep this putative clan/group, even as a redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a barely informative and then actually unsourced article is not something we should keep simply because someone wants it like that, we would need a better article overall. SwisterTwister   talk  18:55, 15 July 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.