Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malghani


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Malghani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. This is the third creation of this article, previously deleted via CSD and PROD. Sitush (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm not sure if it makes sense to have articles for each and every Baloch tribe but this is legitimate. Ansari Ali Sher Ali classified them as Umrani Baloch in 1901, Bombay Education Society noted them in 1907, they show up in the 1911 Indian census as Baloch, and in 2009 Vidya Tyagi listed them as a major Baloch tribe. That said, is there enough to warrant a mention outside of the Baloch tribes page? Curro2 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS - the Raj stuff is not reliable - and for Tyagi see WP:MIRROR. His is one of the most blatant plagiarising exercises published by Gyan. A shared surname does not make for a tribe, at least here on WP, so no there is no reasonable redirect. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1901 and 1907 and a census in 1911... Curro2 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For background on why the Raj census operations are not reliable, you could try Census of India prior to independence. For example, castes/tribes came and went sometimes in a decade because people "made things up" as they jostled for socio-political advantage ... and the enumerators just took them at their word. We need modern sources. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep ,3 mentions in "Balochistan Through the Ages: Tribes" (1979) 1 corresponding to the 1907 gazetteer. Sigmabaroda (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * STOP stalking me. You're like one of the notorious IAC sockfarm from last year. As for your !vote, I think the book you refer to is actually a compilation of reprints from Raj publications. Useless. - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPA and stop your WP:BULLYING. That Raj publications are being used after 60 years shows how durable / solid they were, so please ride your little Raj hobby horse somewhere else and be WP:CIVIL in your interactions with other editors.Sigmabaroda (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But the Raj publications are not being widely used by modern academics, and for a good reason. See, for example, WP:HISTRS and User:Sitush/CasteSources. There is no bullying or personal attacking being done by me. - Sitush (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, the specific publications in this instance are over 100 years' old, not 60. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously your little essay is quite meaningless and self-contradictory. Having acknowledged that the AnSi's 'People of India' ('90s) is heavily Raj based, you make statements like But the Raj publications are not being widely used by modern academics? FYI, Risley, Rose, Monier-Williams rule the roost in the office of the Registrar General of India.Sigmabaroda (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Read this WP article section and you will see why that department of modern academics (AnSI) is the exception to the rule. We do not pay much attention to the Government of India's opinion regarding castes for the same reason - it is all one big political game and not remotely independent. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The 1901 Balochistan census (Hughes Buller) is still used by "modern academics". Baluch and the Brahui, it has Malghani as a commonly listed tribe, and it is cited as "expert" in Pakistan circles .Sigmabaroda (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin; has been indeffed for disruptive editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and draft & userfy if needed as simply none of this is solidly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:20, 14 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.