Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pai khel tribe


 * 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.  A  Train talk 07:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pai khel tribe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG.  Greenbörg  (talk)  14:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Miles Edgeworth Talk 02:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * KeepA 19th century RS lists two Pai khel tribes. One of them might be the one which is the subject of the article.An early 20th century RS covers a Pai khel tribe. If a tribe is verified by reliable sources it seems like an appropriate subject, just like we keep articles about verified hamlets. Edison (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Such Raj-era publications are far from reliable sources on this topic, being based on a mixture of scientific racism and divide and rule. This is explained further at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. If reliable sources are found we are more confident than "might be" that they are discussing the same subject (see above), then the article can be recreated, but what we have at the moment looks like original research and a quick search for sources doesn't reveal much that would be of use in rewriting it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Night  fury  12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Poorly sourced article. Not enough evidence of significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think tribes are like GeoLand, and are encyclopedia-worthy due to thei existence. Like any other species, e.g (no I'm not a racist or an evolutionist) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, parrot, nor a tabloid, and ethnic listings are notable. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Primary" tribes are inherently notable, but here we already have an article on the ethnic group: Pathans, and one on the specific tribe that the Pai Khel are a branch of: the Niazi. I don't think we can reasonably aim to have a separate article on each of the hundreds of sub-subtribes of a given ethnic group. – Uanfala 10:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect, maybe. I haven't actually done any research so I'll stay neutral on the WP:N question.  I do however see that Paikhel talks a little about the tribe, so if it's not kept, at least redirect to Paikhel.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I look into this more, I see we've got many similar/related articles, such as Hassanikhel, Adamkhel, and Sulaimankhel. Is there some WP:SNG which gives advice on how to establish notability for tribes?  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Khel is apparently a generic Pashto term for a tribe subdivision, see Khel (clan). I don't know how the notability of these is generally handled, but I don't expect there to be any specific guidelines. There were quite a few AfDs about Jat clans last year, and I don't think any were judged on anything but WP:GNG. – Uanfala 22:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss some of the points brought up by participants since the last relist.
 * Wait:--Shortly commenting. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 08:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they exist, they may be notable. But, the current sources do not appear verifiable. Ifnord (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They apparently are mentioned in sources, see the first !vote in this discussion. – Uanfala 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And see the response to that first vote. Sources from British Raj ethnographers are not, for very good reasons, accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. Being mentioned in unreliable sources doesn't contribute to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2017 (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.