Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kholida


 * 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   no consensus for any specific action, perhaps a merge discussion on the article's talk page is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kholida

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Are gotras notable? I think not. Seems to me this should be either deleted or merged into Yadav. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree with the nominator, I don't think the subject is notable, or at least has the resources to verify that it is. Supporting a merge to either List of gotras or Yadav, whichever is more appropriate.--hkr Laozi speak  07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. In answer to the nominator's question, it seems that some gotras would be what would have been classified by Western anthropolists as ethnic groups or tribes, which I would consider notable, and others are what would, from that perspective, be called extended families, which usually wouldn't be notable. I'm not going to express an opinion on this particular group, because my past experience has shown that such articles are a bugger to find English-language sources for, often relying on sources such as the rather dubiously reliable nineteenth-century A Glossary Of The Tribes And Castes Of The Punjab And North-West Frontier Province by H. A. Rose (deliberately redlinking because we should have articles). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * 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.