Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikh Rajputs


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Rajputs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There has been long-standing content dispute between the article creator User:Atulsnischal and several editors including User:Roadahead, User:Shanti bhai and me. It is contended that the creator has inserted text that he claims as something that he "read along in his life". Now that, IMO, takes the shape of WP:OR. He doesn't cite any real references to support his claim. The subject lacks verifiability and this has been contested by User:Roadahead on the talk page as well. I'd seek a broader consensus on the fate of the article, which seems flawed and filled with baseless assertions. Mspraveen (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: is presently blocked for 72 hours due to disruptive editing. Kindly let him have his say in this as well. —Mspraveen (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   —Mspraveen (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Sikhism has also been informed of this AfD. —Mspraveen (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's very hard (perhaps impossible?) to find modern scholarly sources that use the term "Sikh Rajput". However, there are some antiquated sources with a variety of authors and purposes:
 * "Memoirs on the History, Folk-lore, and Distribution of the Races of the North Western Provinces of India" from 1869, a book by westerners for westerners
 * The 1922 "Ethnological Epitome of the Hindustanees of the Pacific Coast" a book by a Sikh arguing for equal rights
 * Some ephemera such as 1948 Sikh milk-production records.
 * It seems that the term "Rajput Sikh" has been used interchangeably, so there are other sources for that term.. One reasonably reliable source from the mid-20th century even lists "Rajput Sikh" as the class of rulers in Kapurthala at that time. There are also some minor and unreliable current sources (such as personal ads in which people identify themselves as Sikh Rajputs).
 * All-in-all, there may not be enough information for a complete article but I do think there is enough potential information to let the article be merged and redirected to a new subsection of Rajput. But I will await further discussion from other members of the Wikiprojects before I say more. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Question to anyone involved in this article: is there anything on this subject that is not covered or should not be covered in Sikh, Sikhism and Rajput ? (and if so, what and why) Equendil Talk 06:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is (from what I have seen) that one side claims that there is no such thing as Sikh Rajputs. They feel that the two terms are mutually exclusive, so they may be opposed to any mention of them in any article. Mspraveen et al., please correct me if I am wrong. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles have been tagged for citations again for over a year now, with no success. Is it possible to get a request for comments for these articles together rather than independently, seeing as the same editor is working towards an agenda here?--Shanti bhai (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Almost kafziel. The term Sikh Rajput is being questioned for references to support their existence (I am aware of Sikh's who are of this social class and friends with many personally). But the true dispute of the article is it's POV propoganda where it states that many Hindu Rajput families offered their first born son into Sikhism's growing military rebellion against Muslim invaders. The Rajput custom actually infers the elder son to be the heir and successor of his royal clan and therefore this would be untenable. However, despite requests for over a year for the citations of these requests, user:Atulnischal has been unable to provide the sources here and even goes so far as to claim that others should provide citations for his claims as he is too busy, for over a year now. The version he supports, makes Sikhism appear as a religion based only on confrontation with Muslims, rather than a faith of philanthropy, moral reformation and spirituality. This is also the same mirrored duplication he has added to the Mair Rajputs article, which is also suffering an on going edit war as we speak. I propose, that the article in it's rawest form be merged with the Rajput article, seeing as it does not contain any info of their ethos, cultural practices (should they be distinct from typical Rajputs) --Shanti bhai (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Precisely as per Kafziel. the sources which are there at present don't really offer much veracity to the content being added. The second source at present says something about conversion. Now Rajputs are Hindus and hence there cannot be two-sided versions. Bleakly from Kafziel's sources, I'd agree that there is a hint of the usage of the term from some unreliable sources. But adding content without verifiable and reliable sources is doing no good. I sort of tend to merge and redirect. Mspraveen (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have noticed further problems with the articles that the original writer for this article (user:Atulnischal) has been writing here on Wikipedia. It appears he is cutting and pasting article content with major WP:OR issues in all of them too. The articles are;
 * Nischal
 * Babbar (clan)
 * Mair Rajputs
 * Comment - In fact, the issues with the form of article which was challenged by me earlier on the talk-page of this article is not as simple as having problem with the terms "Sikh Rajput". The issues are manifold that I've tried to explain on the article talkpage but the POV pushers did not respond to clarify or support their claims with adequate information. If the issues are still not clear from my objections on the talk-page please leave me a note, I'll try to come back and work on further clarifying them. I'm currently swamped with job related work and personal obligations, but surely will try to respond back as soon as possible. regards, --Roadahead (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reproducing my initial objection on the article from the talkpage in order to keep things at one place as we discuss AfD for this article. --Roadahead (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to confirm that Sikh Rajputs are, in fact, a viable ethnic group. Nobody seems to deny that they do exist; the problem seems to be keeping the content neutral and verifiable. There are certainly POV issues with the article, but AFD can't used to solve them. I was leaning toward merging into Sikh or Rajput articles but, because POV can cut both ways, I worry that what little content there is be stamped out entirely by the editors of both of the larger groups. So I think we should keep the article for now, expand it as much as reliable sources allow, and use dispute resolution as necessary to keep it neutral. If, after a few months, it turns out that nobody is able to find enough reliable sources to warrant an entire article, I would then support a merge and redirect. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. I am willing to take it on as a side project for a while, if it will help. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:01, 20 September 2008 (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.