Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marwat (2nd nomination)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Marwat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable, unsourced, unverifiable, self-promoting article about a "tribe" with no encyclopedic characteristics. Tags have been removed more than once in the past. Article is basically orphan. Only articles liked to it are about non-notable individuals that should also be PROD'd. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTFORUM seem to apply here. Also fails WP:GNG in "significant coverage", "reliable sources", "independent of the subject". WP:NRVE is also an issue. Loukinho (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Also, it is worthy to note that the first nomination has not properly addressed the issue of notability. Only two "references" point to 3 pages of a subjective mention on a book whose existence and publication can't even be confirmed AND a link to a map. None of which seem to confer notability to the subject. Further reading is equally filled with unverifiable books and information. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC).
 * In what way are the books listed unverifiable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It surprises me that you ask that because you seem to be an experienced editor. The books have NO ISBN, no availability, non-notable books (SEE WP:OR and WP:QS). Further, take note that NONE OF THE BOOKS ARE BEING USED AS REFERENCE which should be cited IN-LINE with the text. Also, many of the books could very well not exist for verifiability or not even touch the subject. It should be more than a trivial mention. As a fellow editor, you are welcome to add this information if you find them. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep. I think the article is notable enough, since there are articles about other neighboring tribes in the regions (Wazir, Zadran and many others). Marwats should have their own article, although references need to be added to it as it needs to have sourced and verifiable content. I found some other articles does mention the Marwat tribe although they don't link to it. Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keep in mind that just because other articles exist, it doesn't mean that all similar articles should. WP:OTHERSTUFF explains in further detail: "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet.". Also it is important to remember that just because it exists, it doesn't mean that it has been subject of significant coverage. Further, notability requires the presence of in-depth and significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources. None of which seem to be the case in this article. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC).


 * Keep per Khestwol's rationale. The article also has plenty of Further Reading links which may be useful as sources. It has potential for verifiability and is adequately written and organized. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: No question it is adequately written and organized, however that alone is not grounds for notability. An article about "My Special Garage Band" could be very well written and organized and even look like the article on Aerosmith for instance. But, if it has no VERIFIABLE SOURCES and SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE it is still not worthy of an encyclopedia. Further, much of the information currently there is not encyclopedic. None of the "further reading" are links!!! The existence of these books (which are NOT being used as references) can't even be confirmed! Remember that an article should have verifiable coverage as WP:NRVE clearly explains. PLEASE read the rationale for nomination. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment: Significance coverage doesn't seem to be an issue for this article, because obviously the article is about a large tribe of Lakki Marwat District. Khestwol (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: In this case, please show me all of the newspaper articles that back up your reference. Also, this is a great way to explain that notability it NOT inherited. While the region of Lakki Marwat is notable, Marwat tribe can't be unless significant coverage (press, media, articles, documentaries and movies) are present and verifiable. See WP:INHERIT. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment: See Google books results for the Marwats. Khestwol (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better than "press, media, articles, documentaries and movies" are books and scholarly papers. Have you, Loukinho, looked at the books cited in the article, or investigated what else can be found by Google Books and Google Scholar searches? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment:You are welcome to go ahead and add them to the article. I am not the one preventing you. Remember, though, that WP:GNG says that sources should address the subject directly in detail, sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Also, sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, can't be self-published or works affiliated with the subject (And I'm not pulling these words out of nowhere. They're straight from the general notability guideline. Word for word). Further, WP:NRVE suggests that the information should be VERIFIABLE. In other words, it can't be a book I wrote myself or a book that has never been published or an academic article that is nowhere to be found or something that somebody said. Books, should, then, have ISBN to be found and be verified. I mean, just because a book says that Hobbits exist doesn't mean we're gonna take it at face value, right? Much less when it is considered ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Academic, peer-reviewed research is a different ball game. But anybody can publish anything in favor or against anything else. WP:OR is very specific over WHICH KINDS of books are considered reliable sources: "books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". My point is that, it is not up for us to decide, but rather, it is our responsibility AS EDITORS to make sure that we're backing up everything we say and that anybody can go ahead and double check it. And that the source is reliable enough to not be misleading. Moreover, I am not preventing anybody from editing this article and contributing. I am contesting, however, its notability. There is a HUGE difference between finding references for LAKKI MARWAT (which is plenty and abundant) and MARWAT TRIBE (which seems to be a subsect/faction of society). All I can find refers to LAKKI MARWAT. And RELIABLE sources have been proven hard to find. Including the books mentioned in the article or all 3 pages of references given in the reference section. The other link refers to a very unreliable source that doesn't meet the criteria and is WP:QS. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment The lack of an ISBN does not automatically cast doubt on the reliability of a book. Books published before about 1970 never have ISBNs, and I don't think they became effectively universal until about 1990. And even after that, there are acceptable, if less common, substitutes - such as the OCLC numbers provided for some of the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs)
 * The point goes beyond ISBN. Verifiability is the main issue here. WP:OR is very specific over which kinds of books are considered reliable sources: "books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses" Please read rationale. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Laukinho, it would be much easier to read, and to take seriously, your comments if you were to cut the SHOUTING. You have simply regurgitated information from policy and guidelines without explaining how they actually apply to this article, which, even before I cited some more sources, had several sources listed from a university press and another from Macmillan Publishers, which is undoubtably a respected publishing house. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I never meant to come across this way, but in either way I recognize that I could have been misinterpreted. I think that from the very beginning I am not being understood and it could be due to the way I wrote my rationale. I just recently read the guidelines on the use of capital letters and can see how it was an appropriate point that you raise on shouting. For that I apologize. I am tempted to not believe, however, that you or other editors took the time to actually read what I wrote, perhaps due to the length of my arguments. I also didn't want to be so through as to sound like I am stating the obvious and become tiresome, but I reckon that in this case, regardless of the length of the essay, it is appropriate if there are serious editors reading. It seems to me, however, that there is a small set of very passionate people who will defend an article with claws and teeth which can also very well "scare" away the general public from the discussion. And the need for a lengthy discussion that issues from that doesn't help it either. This sort of behavior by these passionate users could be easily misunderstood and doesn't seem to add much to the improvement of the article. I do congratulate Phil however for focusing on improving an article of his expertise rather than focusing on the discussion per se. I wish I could do the same, even as a non-expert coming from a neutral point of view, but I found absolutely no reliable information that could be added. My reminders of the policies throughout the discussion pinpointed precisely my concerns over this article. Whereas it could be seen briefly mentioned as a geographical location, namely, Lakki Marwat, there seems to be little evidence that the tribe itself is of any notability. So far, none of my concerns have been properly addressed and even though the article has had some improvement due mainly to Phil's repeated editing. It was a good effort of his part. Certainly worthy of mention.I am not an editor that lives here on Wikipedia focusing on making a certain number of edits a day. But I think I come from a fundamental pillar of the site which refers to the casual editors or those who do not necessarily collect number of edits. It is a seriously under-represented group that used to be of some significance. Now our concerns are often quickly dismissed even when they are valid points or clearly address major concerns of wikipedia itself. It has swayed many people away from this website and with good reason. Some of my concerns, (which may have been worded differently) are not by any means coming from an inexperienced editor. I am raising valid concerns about the values that wikipedia has always held. For instance, the references contains material that is not considered valid or reliable. Wikipedia policies are very clear over which kinds of books are considered reliable sources. Please note, however, that the "read more" section is not considered reference. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. While it would be considered valid to add related material to the article, whenever they are not part of the article itself, they are not references. They are, as the name implies, related material or in this case, further reading. Let me explain it again in different wording to try to make myself clearer: Suppose that I write an article about Yosemite National Park. If I add "Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)" or "African-American Heritage Sites (U.S. National Park Service)" to the related pages, that would be valid. However, it does not mean that these are references or sources to the article. Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence from secondary sources or they can be considered original research. Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information.  Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Wikipedia content.  Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. I agree that some of the related material is from Macmillan Publishers but they are not being used in the article and are not helping to support the information in the article. I am trying to open the eyes of all editors to the fact that these materials are in no means listed as references and that the references consist of unreliable sources. The materials that could be considered reliable could very well be about other subjects, geographic locations or larger groups and not even mention or just trivially mention Marwats, which are, as the article itself suggests, just a branch of a larger Lohani tribe. The Lohani article itself seems to point 4 branches, none of which are Marwat. Still, the Lohani are also a subdivision of the Pashtun tribe which are in turn a subdivision of the Eastern Iranian ethnic group according to the article itself. Would it be the case of merging Marwat to Lohani? According to Khyber.org (which is one of the sources listed) in its article about Lakki Marwat:  ... Among those sub tribes, the Lohani became more famous. Marwats are descendants of the Lohani sub tribe. They are subdivided into four clans (also known as Khels) known as Salars, Tappay, Mussa and Nuna . A little later, it then states: The Marwats form one of the four Great sub-tribes of the Lohani tribes and are also known as Speen Lohani (white Lohanis). That to me sounds contradictory but enough grounds to have them considered within a branch of the Lohani article. I understand there has been some argument between editors of different tribes and regions of the globe about their respective articles but rest assured, I have no dog in this fight. I am yet another wikignome who has no dedicated time for this endeavor.  I also challenged the notability of this article. The notability guidelines are meant to be satisfied and filter between the articles that are worthy of an encyclopedia and the articles that are not. (//interruption//) My computer has just signaled that it was about to crash twice and I still have plenty of errands to run today. I wish I could go on about how this article further doesn't meet the notability guidelines but I don't think I will be able to do it today. I am sorry if I couldn't be so through in my details but I hope reading the basic information on the policies and guidelines will lead to the best course of action. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marwat_(2nd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1 • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just noticed that I hadn't offered a clear opinion here. I have added some citations to the article to significant coverage in reliable sources, but they only scratch the surface of those available: . Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2012 (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.