Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samra


 * 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. The arguments for the retention of this article are not based in any policy; whereas, those requesting deletion have shown how the article is void of any actual reliable sources, and is borderline if not total WP:OR. Therefore, the article's subject is found to be non-notable, and unsuitable for inclusion on this encyclopedia. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Samra

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been restored per a request at WP:REFUND by. That request just indicates their continued unwillingness or inability to accept consensus about such issues as verifiability, use of primary sources, use of reliable sources, synthesis/original research etc.

I trimmed back the undeletion and have now self-reverted for this AfD - I think it might benefit any reviewers here to at least check out the history since undeletion, where my edit summaries should mostly be self-explanatory. Kulveer's history in relation to this article might also bear examination.

The subject certainly does exist as a name and perhaps there is indeed a cluster of the name in one tiny area of India but it woefully fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the main contention of Sitush is that 'Sumra' as referred in various sources and 'Samra' are not talking about the same tribe and on this contention he deleted all cited references to 'Sumra' or 'Sumrah'. However, the tribe is called in Hindi and Punjabi as SaM (rhyming with 'Gum')-Ra (rhyming with Baa Baa of Ba Ba Black sheep fame); and while transliterating their surname in English script, some members chose the phonetically similar spellings of Sum-Ra. Moreover, the Britishers and Indians had different ways of spelling almost everything (Examples - Punjab:Panjab, Jeypore:Jaipur, Ajmer: Ajmeyre, Singh:Sing, Ganga: Ganges, the list is endless). Hence, there should have been no reason to deleted H.A.Rose or the Punjab Gazetteer citations, which are good sources and have been deleted only because of the phonetic confusion between Sumra and Samra. Secondly, a contention of Sitush is with regard to references to James Tod and Magasthenes both of which are widely read and taught sources in India, and both of them are supposedly 'unreliable sources' as per Wikipedia standards. I beg you to review the two gentlemen. Magasthenes (an ancient greek traveller), Hsüan-tsang and Fa-Hien are three ancient travellers to India and form the back-ground for a substantial historical narrative of India and to discard one of them completely seems a bit odd; I wonder if discarding Magasthenes altogether could result in revision of India's entire history. Thirdly, all references to notable personalities have been removed citing lack of references, while I have cited links to Outlook magazine, official list of Mahavir Chakra Winners, MLAs etc. All such personalities are verifiable. Lastly and humbly, without resorting to any hyperbole, I think the deletion of the page is due to lack of knowledge of ground conditions. Samra is not JUST a name or a surname, it is a tribe spread across north Indian sub-continent. An encyclopedia ought to document such lesser known tribes (there might be reams of pages on larger tribes, we don't serve any archival purpose by documenting them); and if this tribe's page is deleted, wikipedia administrators might consider a policy for deletion of all pages of such tribes/ clans across the world. Kulveer (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comments seem to be pure original research and a misunderstanding of consensus regarding Raj source etc, sorry. Please also note WP:OSE - that other poor articles might exist is not a reason to keep this one. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst  ✈  04:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've requested that also restore the talk page of this article as the discussions there would presumably help the rest of us to understand the issues behind this AFD. --  &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the talk page, which includes statements by Sitush and Kulveer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge This seems to be the same topic as Soomra and Soomro. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prove it. This looks like yet another case of you wading into the caste arena about which you still seem to know nothing. I've explained to you in the past that we cannot make these leaps of faith due to issues such as transliteration, variant native spellings and the existence of communities across India that appear to bear the same name but are in fact distinct. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia states 'The word "Samra" has been corrupted into "Soomra"'. Such issues of transliteration are quite routine and common.  They are not an adequate reason to delete because we commonly retain alternate spellings as redirects, rather than deleting them. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And you've been told before that source and similar Raj sources are not reliable. You've got to stop this seemingly intransigent inclusionism on caste-related stuff - it just burns a lot of time for everyone else and you seem to "lose" on every occasion, at least where I'm a participant. Sorry, Andrew, but you just do not understand and/or are unwilling to understand the consensus. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I consider Balfour to be a respectable and sufficiently reliable source for this purpose. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you do. And every time you raise those Raj sources you are shown to be incorrect. Learn, please. We've got enough problems with caste articles without getting sidetracked by intelligent, experienced contributors who go into IDHT mode. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So far, Sitush has violated the behavioural guidelines of WP:OWN, WP:PA and WP:BLUDGEON. I would not trouble to respond but, unfortunately, there is a risk that failure to respond might be taken as acquiescence and so on we go.  The general issue here is that there are numerous clan and family names in India.  We maintain pages for the Western equivalents such as Clan Davidson and Davidson (name).  To systematically erase the South Asian cases seems to be systemic bias.  Sources such as Balfour seem adequate evidence that there is some encyclopaedic notability here and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will keep doing what I do until you are topic banned from these discussions. You are a massive timesink in this area. And if you don't like that then take me to ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacking English language sources for this tribe, I don't see how we can have an article on it. It appears that there are no non-English language sources either, just the opinion of an editor. That doesn't cut it. Also, re the discussion above, Magasthenes, Hsüan-tsang, Fa-Hien, Ibn Batuta or Niccolao Manucci cannot be used as sources. Anything that they say that is of importance should be easily sourced to a contemporary source, almost certainly an academic one. I can't believe that someone is actually arguing that we should use Magasthenes as a direct source. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why can't Megasthenes be used as a direct source when I have linked to his book in Original Greek as well? A lot of Indian History is derived from what he wrote, do we debunk the entire history? Please elaborate. Secondly, Sitush had even deleted all Indian sources of notable Samra personalities, even though they had been referred from reputed magazines and original list of Mahavir Chakra winners, certainly shows a disproportionate deletion amounting to vandalism. Kulveer (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, essentially per RegentsPark. We cannot have an article that is based on hearsay, rather than reliable sources, and I see no evidence of reliable sources being produced any time soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the cited sources like Rose, Official Gazetteer can be bundled as 'hearsay'. Of course, Megasthenes and James Tod too are by no means 'hearsay'. I think the deletions by Sitush of all caste related articles of India are doing a disservice to the archival of Indian history and point to a personal bais. I am not an editor and am not aware of all your rules but I have been objective in collecting sources and writing the text. Surnames are to India what clans and blood-lines are to rest of world. Debunking this entire field of study by debunking sources like James Tod seems a bit Talibanese to me. Kulveer (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete:: Simply, not notable in the light of sources present in the article.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain to an ignorant soul like me how the official gazette of British India can be termed as 'not notable'; how Megasthenes who forms the bed-rock of Indian historical narrative (with other travellers like Fa-Hien etc) can be termed as 'not notable'. James Tod has been listed as 'not notable' perhaps by Wikipedia editors; perhaps the discussion needs to be re-started there as well as to how a book that is widely accepted by academicians and universtities of India as an honest narrative has been debunked on Wikipedia. Kulveer (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Strong Keep, What counts as notable, a single sentence article? Filpro (talk) 03:51, 26 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.