Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arakh

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arakh

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

The reason for deletion of this page is that it does not have any reliable source. The page says that a clan ruled at a particular region at some time. But who knows. There is not any official source to rely on. RobertGRAND (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage and hence for failing WP:GNG. I found them listed as a muslim caste/tribe in "Scheduling the OBCs Among the Muslims in Uttar Pradesh: Discrepancies and Irregularities" by Abdul Waheed, but no coverage. Waheed puts them in a list as a caste or tribe in the 1931 census of India. People of India: Maharashtra mentions them, in passing, as a sub-caste of the Pasi (p. 1684), and calls them "Arakh Pasi" (p. 1683). The Tribes and castes of the Central Provinces of India: Vol. II (1916) has a passing mention, but is not, now-a-days, considered a reliable source. After deletion, I would redirect the term to Eleazar ben Arach as the primary use seems to be to refer to his works. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case anyone thinks that a redirect to Pasi might be in order, People of India: Maharashtra is also not a reliable source. The People of India "states" series plagiarised Tribes and castes of the Central Provinces of India and other British Raj "ethnologies", often without attribution. While the "national" series, published by Oxford University Press, is considered to be ok, discussions at WP:RSN and other venues have come out against the "states" series for this reason. For those who do not understand the problems with Raj ethnic studies, WP:HISTRS, Census of India prior to independence, Sanskritisation and User:Sitush/CasteSources all provide background info of relevance. - Sitush (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that this community apparently also refers to itself as the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I've not had time to search yet. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently also "Arkvanshi", but so far I found no reliable sources under any title. --Bejnar (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The article is fully protected because of persistent sock puppetry.--regentspark (comment) 16:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've dug around but can find no reliable sources that discuss this group. - Sitush (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 December 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.