Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rajput clans of Jalandhar 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. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." 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. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of a network of garbage created by same editor.
Comment And @Sitush, maybe you have forgot it, but I notice there is User:Sitush/sandbox3, which you wrote during the previous round of Afd debates. It can fit well in the title History of the Census of India (redlinked in your user page)and can explain well why the 1911 census was not reliable. Solomon 7968 12:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been hanging off moving that draft into mainspace because I want to get hold of a copy of the book I mention in the further reading section. I can only see snippets of it but the thing looks to be very useful. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The avalanche of Punjab crap articles continues. (Of possible connection.)
Poorly sourced; delete per above. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all poorly sourced and fail GNG. The nom puts it well. Crappy articles indeed. ƬheStrike Σagle 14:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete as per GNG. the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:36, 15 January 2015 (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.