Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat clans of Multan Division

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat clans of Multan Division

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Sitush (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a harmless list and we have plenty of lists on ethnic groups. As far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason for this deletion nomination. Mar4d (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? WP:RS, for starters. WP:OSE also. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed with Mar4d, no policy based reason for this deletion nomination, thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But since I've given some policy reasons prior to your response, that response makes no sense. - Sitush (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer It meets policies mentioned by you. Wikipedia's policies are so flawed, they can be constorted to meet any point of view you want and I have seen that and experienced. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly is a WP:NOT case as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Per WP:NOT, "Cross-categories ... are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" and I don'f find it such. As cited in nom the lead of the article itself says how vague the content of the article are. And same is true for some other similar articles, that I suggest should be considered in this AfD:

-- SMS ^Talk 03:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we can remove the lead, not the whole article. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article comes from the same source as the lead and the source itself says that its content are vague. -- SMS ^Talk 20:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.