893:. Do you know anything about the formation and cessation of alleged caste groupings? About how the Brits dealt with them? They would have accepted my claim to be a member of the Mickey Mouse caste had I proffered it, and then not batted an eyelid when at the next census I said I was in fact a member of the Donald Duck caste, and in both cases I was the only member. It's a nonsense to rely on Brit sources and to rely on sources that rely on those. -
271:. I don't why it was de-PRODed and it would be better if it had been nominated for speedy deletion. Most of the articles from these clan categories, completely fail the minimum notability guidelines and have no claim of significance. Probably created out of self interest. It would be good all these articles were multi-AfDed.
934:. It may have sources but I doubt we'll resolve this in a week. It doesn't belong in mainspace but I'm not sure it needs to be deleted right away. Let it get worked on draftspace if people wish and from there, we can evaluate this again in six months or longer based on how MFD and other policies work themselves out. --
955:
has flagged as a mere echo of the Raj-era sources. This is not sufficient for inclusion on a list, ore even for draftify. While I am aware that ethnology in the Punjab is an under-resourced field of scholarship, sometimes, the writing of a
Knowledge (XXG) article (even on a thing that may exist and
724:
If something doesn't exist out there in the world, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the sources. People might read this sources and then come here looking for more information. It's not our job to tell people what exists and what doesn't, but to give them whatever information is available in the
856:
CSC doesn't say that: it gives various scenarios. We routinely remove unlinked entries from, for example, the tribes article mentioned above. We're not a directory, we're not in the business of listing every possible thing and we're certainly not in the business of listing unverified ambiguities
693:
What reliable sources have you found? Why do you think people are going to search for something that quite probably doesn't exist and/or exists ambiguously (eg: I have seen at least one source that seems to imply it may be some sort of social group in Arabia). There are plenty of articles about
682:
type of article was explicitly deleted some years ago. Some alleged clans also exist in a multitude of higher-level communities, such as Jat/Gurjar/Rajput - which would we redirect to in that circumstance? And what when the higher-level group disputes their claim, as with the
300:
De-prodder here. I was merely disagreeing with the specific rationale given (yes, there do exist sources) and I have no opinion on the topic's notability. I'm adding search links for other spelling variants (on the assumption that it's
Panjabi that the name is transcribed
651:
and redirect there all these thread-bare stubs. If the sources that mention them are all Raj-era (or derived) then maybe such an article could do with a little introduction on the reliability of these sources. What are your thoughts,
203:. Article was de-PRODDED. It has been unsourced since creation in 2009 and I can find no reliable sources that discuss it. Please note that Raj era sources are not considered to be reliable, nor is a passing mention. Works such as
857:
based on vanity claims made a century ago to people with no recognised authority and no fact-checking criteria. We routinely delete articles such as this, probably at the rate of at least 5 or 6 every month. -
528:
339:
168:
465:
402:
873:
may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on
Knowledge (XXG) is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles
204:
731:
As for the case of ambiguity, that's what hatnotes and dab pages are for. The social group of Arabia you should be seeing in about half of the google books results is, as far as I can tell, the
973:
and we seriously should start taking better analysis with these articles as they are not acceptable with these mere minimal contents, still (like the others) not having anything convincing.
224:
639:
glance I don't see enough material for a stand-alone article. But it does appear in sources, so readers are likely to search for it. I'm wondering if it isn't best to create (per
121:
951:. The problem I have is that the 3 sources brought by Unafala consist of 2 books published while Victoria was Empress of India, and District Gazetteer from the 1980s that
244:
838:
isn't relevant here as applies only to lists of persons. Generally, entries in lists don't need to be notable (I'm linking again to the common selection criteria at
522:
333:
162:
459:
396:
128:
17:
782:, because all the articles in the category have similar issues (notability, probably doesn't exist and/or exists ambiguously as per
725:
sources. The fact that some of these are unreliable is also part of the information we should provide. I think the long list at
582:
94:
89:
788:
657:
273:
98:
543:
354:
183:
480:
417:
1010:
510:
321:
150:
40:
447:
384:
252:
232:
81:
986:
504:
315:
144:
775:
718:
648:
441:
378:
818:
248:
228:
1006:
961:
758:
755:
752:
36:
714:
679:
644:
500:
311:
140:
991:
965:
943:
931:
902:
884:
866:
851:
830:
808:
769:
746:
707:
669:
623:
601:
567:
437:
374:
293:
256:
236:
216:
63:
939:
694:
various Raj "ethnologists" and they often make it clear that their output is considered useless, eg:
85:
875:. And one of the scenarios it gives is when all the entries in a list fail the notability criteria.
800:
285:
974:
536:
473:
410:
347:
176:
550:
361:
190:
726:
487:
424:
835:
814:
578:
77:
69:
880:
847:
765:
742:
665:
597:
563:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1005:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
957:
898:
889:
Yes. And it explicitly says other things, too. So less of the "generally", please. And read
862:
826:
703:
619:
212:
839:
640:
268:
200:
935:
821:, which in fact contains more clans than it does tribes and is a maintenance nightmare. -
611:
614:
to me. That's going off your own phrasing in introducing them - it is full of maybes. -
516:
327:
156:
453:
390:
58:
956:
may be notable) simply has to wait until the scholarship to support an article exists.
890:
876:
843:
779:
761:
738:
732:
695:
661:
593:
559:
115:
952:
894:
858:
822:
783:
699:
653:
615:
208:
751:
The three sources I see in the google books results for the main spelling are:
54:
684:
688:
717:
will be unworkable. Then we're still left with a regional grouping:
999:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
678:
We don't usually redirect caste things that lack sources, and a
817:. We can't have lists of non-notable entities. We already have
698:. If a source is unreliable then we don't use it, period. -
111:
107:
103:
774:
I agree with idea of creation of list with a title of
535:
472:
409:
346:
175:
584:
equates the Mair with the Mera, and as far as I know
610:All these alternate spellings seem like a bunch of
549:
486:
423:
360:
189:
813:In addition to what I've already said, please see
225:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1013:). No further edits should be made to this page.
729:is an extreme example of what I have in mind.
245:list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions
8:
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
223:Note: This debate has been included in the
588:can be an alternative Panjabi spelling for
207:simply regurgitate/plagiarise Raj sources.
242:
222:
872:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
871:CSC explicitly says that notability
24:
721:, is there any problem with that?
1:
577:Can they be the same as the
1030:
992:04:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
966:16:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
944:19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
903:13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
885:13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
867:12:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
852:08:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
831:00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
809:00:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
770:19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
747:19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
708:17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
670:17:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
624:17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
602:16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
568:15:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
294:15:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
257:15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
237:15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
217:15:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
64:00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
1002:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
581:? One (Raj-era) source
819:List of Punjabi tribes
776:List of Panjabi clans
719:List of Panjabi clans
649:List of Panjabi clans
786:, no sources etc.)
727:Spurious languages
778:or like that, by
715:List of Jat clans
680:List of Jat clans
645:List of Jat clans
643:) something like
259:
249:Shawn in Montreal
239:
229:Shawn in Montreal
1021:
1004:
989:
984:
932:Draft:Mahra clan
928:Draftify for now
807:
805:
798:
793:
736:
687:relationship to
554:
553:
539:
491:
490:
476:
428:
427:
413:
365:
364:
350:
292:
290:
283:
278:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
62:
34:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1011:deletion review
1000:
987:
975:
804:
801:
794:
789:
787:
730:
496:
433:
370:
307:
289:
286:
279:
274:
272:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1027:
1025:
1016:
1015:
995:
994:
968:
946:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
802:
722:
673:
672:
629:
628:
627:
626:
605:
604:
571:
570:
556:
493:
430:
367:
303:
302:
297:
296:
287:
261:
260:
240:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1026:
1014:
1012:
1008:
1003:
997:
996:
993:
990:
985:
982:
978:
972:
969:
967:
963:
959:
954:
950:
947:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
926:
925:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
799:
797:
792:
785:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
753:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
734:
728:
723:
720:
716:
713:Oh I see, so
712:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
690:
686:
681:
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
630:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
576:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
548:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
527:
524:
521:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
502:
499:
498:Find sources:
494:
489:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
439:
436:
435:Find sources:
431:
426:
422:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
376:
373:
372:Find sources:
368:
363:
359:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:
335:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
313:
310:
309:Find sources:
305:
304:
299:
298:
295:
291:
284:
282:
277:
270:
267:- Failure of
266:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1001:
998:
980:
976:
970:
948:
927:
795:
790:
733:Mehri people
696:H. H. Risley
692:
636:
632:
589:
585:
574:
546:
540:
532:
525:
519:
513:
507:
497:
483:
477:
469:
462:
456:
450:
444:
434:
420:
414:
406:
399:
393:
387:
381:
371:
357:
351:
343:
336:
330:
324:
318:
308:
280:
275:
264:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
49:
47:
31:
28:
958:E.M.Gregory
953:User:Sitush
842:). Thanks.
523:free images
460:free images
397:free images
334:free images
163:free images
936:Ricky81682
579:Mair caste
78:Mahra clan
70:Mahra clan
1007:talk page
59:talk page
37:talk page
1009:or in a
836:WP:NLIST
815:WP:NLIST
689:Brahmins
685:Bhumihar
658:KCVelaga
635:After a
633:Redirect
558:Cheers.
122:View log
39:or in a
877:Uanfala
844:Uanfala
780:Uanfala
762:Uanfala
739:Uanfala
662:Uanfala
594:Uanfala
560:Uanfala
529:WP refs
517:scholar
466:WP refs
454:scholar
403:WP refs
391:scholar
340:WP refs
328:scholar
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
983:wister
979:wister
971:Delete
949:Delete
895:Sitush
859:Sitush
840:WP:CSC
823:Sitush
796:Velaga
784:Sitush
700:Sitush
654:Sitush
641:WP:CSC
616:Sitush
501:Google
438:Google
375:Google
312:Google
301:from):
281:Velaga
269:WP:GNG
265:Delete
209:Sitush
201:WP:GNG
199:Fails
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
803:☚╣✉╠☛
637:quick
612:WP:OR
590:Mehra
544:JSTOR
505:books
481:JSTOR
442:books
418:JSTOR
379:books
355:JSTOR
316:books
288:☚╣✉╠☛
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
988:talk
962:talk
940:talk
899:talk
891:WP:V
881:talk
863:talk
848:talk
827:talk
766:talk
743:talk
704:talk
666:talk
656:and
620:talk
598:talk
586:Mera
575:Note
564:talk
537:FENS
511:news
474:FENS
448:news
411:FENS
385:news
348:FENS
322:news
253:talk
233:talk
213:talk
205:this
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
55:J04n
930:to
647:or
551:TWL
488:TWL
425:TWL
362:TWL
191:TWL
120:– (
52:.
964:)
942:)
901:)
883:)
865:)
850:)
829:)
791:KC
768:)
760:.
757:,
754:,
745:)
737:.
706:)
668:)
660:?
622:)
600:)
592:.
566:)
531:)
468:)
405:)
342:)
276:KC
255:)
247:.
235:)
227:.
215:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
981:T
977:S
960:(
938:(
897:(
879:(
861:(
846:(
825:(
764:(
741:(
735:)
702:(
691:.
664:(
618:(
596:(
562:(
555:)
547:·
541:·
533:·
526:·
520:·
514:·
508:·
503:(
495:(
492:)
484:·
478:·
470:·
463:·
457:·
451:·
445:·
440:(
432:(
429:)
421:·
415:·
407:·
400:·
394:·
388:·
382:·
377:(
369:(
366:)
358:·
352:·
344:·
337:·
331:·
325:·
319:·
314:(
306:(
251:(
231:(
211:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.