Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyan

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 keep. Wifione ^Message 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seyan

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources Sitush (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [somewhere]. Need help to determine best place for redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk)`
- Withdrawn -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the clans listed in the Rajput Groups of India template - seems to be an upsurge in work on these articles - WP:TIND --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjayay (talk • contribs)

It was added to the template by the same editor who created this article.[1] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears in A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province as "Sián". That name is occupied by the dab page sian so we might move to a qualified form. Warden (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in a glossary isn't really a source to write an encyclopedia article with. There is no doubt the name merely exists. If the AfD closes delete there would be no issue with creating a dab page if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. We have no minimum size requirement and other encyclopedias commonly have brief entries — enough is as good as a feast. We have a standard classification for such brief entries — WP:STUB. Warden (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single entry in a glossary is not enough for WP:SIGCOV (ie. WP:GNG). There is no assertion of "significance", and GNG requires "multiple" sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No assertion of significance is required, whatever that may mean, as we are not in the business of making or requiring value judgements. For another source, see Sir James Dunlop Smith's Customary Law of the Main Tribes of the Siálkot District. That's another article that needs starting as a stub - there's no end to the gaps in our coverage. Warden (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention". An assertion is not a value judgement, it says something beyond "this thing exists". The multiple sources (per WP:GNG) need content from which we can write an encyclopedia article beyond merely "this is a name used in India". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. Warden (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually saying something is a straw man can be a red herring.. See Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary aka biographical dictionary. If there's something to say about the tribe that is encyclopedic and notable it could be a stub, but listing it exists is a genealogical/biographical dictionary entry. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can do more than say it exists and so such conjectures are irrelevant. Warden (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I'm not against including this information on Wikipedia, but a standalone article has a higher requirement of sourcing that is more difficult to achieve. I agree that Wikipedia is lacking in this area, but rather than trying to force through weak stubby articles that keep showing up at AfD, a list-article should be created with a paragraph or so for each, then when it gets enough content/sourcing spin it off to a separate article using a "main article" link. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator tries to delete lists of such clans and tribes too. Warden (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sourcing is poor it would be a problem. Many of these tribes/clans amount to surnames. There are occasionally articles on surnames such as Smith (surname) but most surnames don't have articles (beyond dabs). They could if the sources are there for it to build an encyclopedia article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of pages about surnames — see category:Surnames. Warden (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your right don't know enough about it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus of above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (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.