Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuntal


 * 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 keep. Sr13 08:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuntal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non notable tribe. Almost in gibberish english. No information found that it is actually notable in any way. SierraSix 06:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   cab 06:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Well, how can we say it is non notable, if that is mentioned on Mahabharat? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - every other Jat Gotra has its own article. Presumably the problems with this article stem from English not being the creator's first language, but there are enough English-speaking Indian Wikipedians that I think it's a safe bet someone will clean this up now the problem has been brought to light —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - here is an interesting citation discussing Kuntal Country over 800 years ago . Passes the 100 years test? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If every Jat Gotra has an individual article why not merge all of them into a single article rather than 10s(or 100s???) of separate articles?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the same reason we don't merge Florida and North Dakota into a single United States article —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While a merge may be appropriate, deletion is not. John Vandenberg 10:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The above editor says it is a jat gotra though the name is pretty common in where I live (West Bengal in India). Surnames and clans surely deserve wikipedia entries. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The content deserves an full fledged article. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (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.