Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage


 * 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, as illustrated by some of the participants below, the article is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information. The keep arguments have failed to appropriately address those concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is unsourced original research. It also violates WP:Note, WP:V, and WP:SOAP. Having a list of tribes, and saying that they once followed a certain religion is not encyclopedic.IP198 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article must not be deleted .The contents of the listing are an aggregation of links from many existing articles on Wikipedia . The charge of original research is also unfounded the listings and their links to their respective pages on Wikipedia already state the import of the article . There is no violation of WP:Noteas the contents of the listings already form existing and valid articles on Wikipedia . As regards the pretext of WP:SOAP it does not apply at all . As regards the charge of Lists wikipedia has innumerable similar lists ,including those to which .IP198 has contributed and I could substantiate . The issue of lineage is a valid topic for an encyclopedia Intothefire 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The racial background of the population of the Punjab is encyclopedic, but this article approaches it in a confused way and is not salvageable. Until I read this I assumed that it was generally understood that the Muslim population of the Indian sub-continent was mostly descended from Hindu converts, although there could be some Arab and Iranian ancestry.  Trying to seperate this out by families or clans is subscribing to very dated notions of racial purity. PatGallacher 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep (Sigh) Two of the five books cited in the references show up on Google. The others probably exist but don't show up for whatever reason.  I don't really see why we need to have a list of racial clans like this, but I hope the creator is not the only one who finds it useful.  I think original research concerns can be resolved by referencing individual pages within the books where possible. Yechiel Man  22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The original research i was talking about is statement such as "The continued prevalence of these Hindu Surnames in spite of the trend to trace ancestry to Persian and Arabic sources is also indicative of strong tribal affinity and kinship among these groups." It doesnt make any sense to have this article as many Muslims of foreign descent intermarried with muslims who had converted from Hinduism. Its impossible to verify that a certain tribe is 100% descended from one particular group. IP198 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for underlying OR. Another title for this article could be "list of Pakistani surnames of Hindu origin" (which could very well be put up for AfD as listcruft).  But although this article's body is no different from that title I've suggested, the article attempts to draw some sort of meaning or significance to this collection of surnames (without, by the way, citing each name as actually being of Hindi origin, although I understand that in theory the references at the bottom could have verification of such).  I certainly feel that articles about ethnicity and cultural shift are important, but this is not really about either of those things...except in the mind of the author. -Markeer 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1)The information on this article is from
 * reliable
 * Scholarly
 * published
 * verifiabe sources often used on wikipedia and
 * which have now been provided ,and will improve the article no doubt.


 * 2) There is no original research here -The sources used are  secondary, and tertiary.


 * 3) Further links provided on this article to other wikipedia articles corroborate this article


 * 4)The subject of lineage and genology and lists thereof of people ,clans and tribes is a valid encyclopedic article and similar articles abound on wikipedia.


 * 5)As regards the books, which three would you like further details on.
 * Intothefire 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment-There are so many more articles on wikipedia that would fit the bill for deletion considering the reasons I am seeing here ,for  example List of Pakistani family names...I would imagine then that the same rational would apply to them as well .Take the case of List of Pakistani family names  would the editors delete this article and other similar as well...I could provide a whole list from wikipedia . Intothefire 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  15:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Intothefire. Shyamsunder 07.40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per nominator? I guess you meant "Delete" per nominator. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry, corrected now .Shyamsunder 18.18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This article serves no identifiable purpose. Hinduism is a Faith NOT an ethnicity that the article suggests (i.e. Hindu lineage). It can also be argued should we have articles suggesting the druid "lineage" of many British clans? Many of the clans listed already contain quite some detail re their previous Hindu faith. I would also argue that the sources are ducious on some cases and misleading in others (see Awan talkpage for an example.--Raja 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominator's concern is valid -- this is indiscriminate, poorly-sourced list. Besides, I don't mean what do we mean by "Hindu lineage" -- Hinduism is not an ethnic group -- it is a religious group that consists of several ethnic groups. The page numbers have been requested for "references", but none have been provided. utcursch | talk 11:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Utcursch 1)inline citations provided 2) page number provided as examples ..I could keep providing further, but  you may like to also assess the depth  page level simillarly of references provided on articles by those suggesting Delete here . Intothefire 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unencyclopediac list-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --  Sef rin gle Talk 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions.   --  Sef rin gle Talk 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  ITAQALLAH   16:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The "Keeps" don't explain how the article is encylopedic and not original research. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Extended
Per the article creator's request, I am extending this debate for one week to allow a better consensus to form. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep based on YechielMan's arguments--they are almost all sourced out of an old survey, but this may still be the best reference. Eventually perhaps we'll have more articles on them. Section 15, Classic Cities of the Punjab Region belongs in another article unless more explanation is given--I assume the intended meaning is "cities in Punjab Region that have been notable for the historic Hindu presence or associations there".DGG 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per nom, WP:OR, and user Utcursch. NSR 77  T C  18:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG; the major objection here seems to be the title, so rename: Hindi origin? Subcontinental origin? (The assumption that each surname marks a pure line of descent is almost certainly the sources', so the fix there is to add more recent ethnography.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:OK I am agreeable to rename the title of the page to for example Punjabi tribes from Indian origin . Lets have a constructive concensus building debate here ! CheersIntothefire 08:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment we cant rename it to Hindi origin, as thats a language. As for subcontinental, or Indian origin thats a problem as well as some of the tribes mentioned in this article, like Awan (Pakistan) claim foreign ancestery. Also Muslims of foreign ancestery have oftern intermarried with Muslims whose ancestors were Hindus.

Delete This article, nay list, is really quite stupid and to rename it Punjabi tribes from Indian origin would be facile, go someway beyond stating the obvious (yet at the same time be a bone of contention, especially in the case of tribes claiming Arab or Persian lineage) and thus to put it bluntly, the author’s suggestion is simply foolish.

Besides, when these tribes first formed a discernable identity, the concept an Indian identity did not even exist. So why attempt to classify these tribes as being of anything but Punjabi origin?

If one was to be pedantic, it could be argued that many of the tribes that the author lists could claim, for example, to be of Scythian, rather than Indian, lineage. But where does this leave other tribes listed by the author? The original title of his article is simply absurd. As others have stressed, Hindusim is a faith system and Hindus do not form a distinct ethnic group. Whoever stated that this article could serve as a model for a similar article listing British clans (in this day and age, of those who are religious, made up overwhelmingly of Christians) from Pagan lineage, in an effort to emphasise how ludicrous the author’s article really is, has hit the nail on the head. The author may as well go the whole hog and attempt to trace the lineage of these tribes beyond the point Hinduism was practised.

Whatever the author has to say about the material he has used to support his claims, the fact remains that he is making reference to opinions not facts, opinions that can be contradicted by material that is of equal weight. In the case of some tribes he has listed, a Hindu past cannot be denied (or at least is difficult to do so) and most of these tribes do admit to such a past, a fact that has already been stressed. But in the case of other tribes that proffer alternative theories as to their lineage, to categorically state, as the author does, on the basis of opinion rather than fact, that these tribes also have a Hindu past, is simply wrong.

The article is pointless. Most Punjabi Muslim tribes do acknowledge their ancestral origins (and in certain cases, there will always be a cause for dispute when it comes to this topic, though Punjabi tribes are not unique in this respect) but for the majority, it is the role Islam has played in shaping their culture, attitude and outlook on life that has continued to remain of relevance, which cannot be said of a distant past they has long ceased to be of any real importance to them. In other words, there is a good reason that these tribes came to be categorised as Punjabi Muslims in the first place.

1)For each specific point of objection raised I have provided specific verifiable responses to fulfill objections. For example the Britannica. 2)I provided names of verifiable, neutral sources from books and citations. 3)No information is original research and much of it is corroborated by articles within wikipedia itself. 4)Hyperlinks on listings lead to wikipedia articles. 5)As to the issue of racial purity this is not mentioned any where in the article . 6)Hindu is defined as a person in wikipedia, see link .The term Hinduism is not used in the article ,therefore reference to and objection thereof to the word Hinduism is misplaced. 7)Is the contribution of an anonymous user and the intemperate language used valid on this debate. 8)If the article needs to be encyclopedic please inform criteria so that it may be improved, I am all for improvement. I have stated this earlier as well 9)From the time of this debate starting I have continuously improved the article based on fulfilling requirements of objectors, It seems to me that the objections are contributing to improve the article each day and this is good.
 * Comment:

Cheers Intothefire 13:13, 29 June 2007 (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.