Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ahir gotras

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. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ahir gotras

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

seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE; a list of every member of a clan? Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting it, although for notability / verifiability reasons. I created the article as a step toward removing it from within the Ahirs article in which I found it. There are many such lists of gotras (SE Asian clans) and they seem to be important to their authors, so I didn't want to delete the list in one go. Can I suggest we leave it around long enough for the authors of the Ahirs article to comment? I'll post a comment to this effect in the Ahirs talk page. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is a seven-day process. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, very important for researchers in relating to other communities and origin study. Helpful and rare collection.~~ Ikon ^No-Blast 09:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how the complete list passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and, indeed, WP:V. The helpfulness is not the only consideration when an article is considered for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and as a list WP:Indiscriminate. Also the keep statement of "rare collection" is exactly the reason for deletion, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. -SpacemanSpiff 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:V the article cites jatland.com which in turn cites (indeed appears to reproduce in its entirity) a translation of History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon. However, the same citation remains in the parent article, Ahirs, so were the list article to be deleted readers would still have access to the original material. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the entire problem. The Jatland article is a wiki article edited and protected by one user and is a primary source; the book was written in 1938, and we've had multiple discussions about that book as a reliable source, as it is written from the perspective of the group itself, not a typical historical thesis. In addition, the Jatland article doesn't include half of the names within this list. -SpacemanSpiff 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment; all we could verify would be the content of our article against the cited source, and that would mean on-going monitoring and maintenance for very little encyclopedic benefit. But if consensus is that the only source doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS then the article is a non-starter. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I didn't say that the book has been identified as not-RS; we've had discussions on that (at a couple of AfDs) with no clear outcome, and I hold this opinion that it can be used as a primary source, but not a definitive source. It definitely needs to be scrubbed through at WP:RSN but no one seems to have a copy of the book to actually discuss it, it's only quoted! -SpacemanSpiff 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete on the basis of SpacemanSpiff's comments re the sole source, unless someone springs to its defence or cites a better source. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my vote, perhaps, it is solely created by one person from one single source. however, I don't agree that clan name should cite any published reference, because such researches are rarely done Ikon ^No-Blast 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:ONESOURCE notability and WP:V issues.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete with prejudice, under WP:V. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (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.