Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Rawalpindi Division


 * 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   SOFTDELETE. J04n(talk page) 00:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jat clans of Rawalpindi Division

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg: As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division and
 * Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Jat_clans_of_Lahore_Division
 * Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Rajput_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - looks like a transcript of the primary source in question. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources for something to be considered notable so unless such coverage can be produced, this should be deleted.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2014 (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.