Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewlia

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 of the discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewlia

This is intended as a testcase. There are added recently many very short stubs about gotras, which are basically clans. This is a typical one. It just says, if I understand it correctly, that this is one of the many clans in this region of India. This seems to be rather useless and an example of WP:NOT. I am not going to list all of them yet, as there are way too many (see List of Jat clans for just one region, and Rajput clans for another), but if this one gets deleted, I would like a proposal as to how I (or anyone) can best procedd to delete all the other ones (of similar content: there are some which are notable (clans of rulers etcetera) and undeletable for other reasons). Fram 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Jewlia is on social group of India. It has been written encyclopedic way. I got it in svenska wikipedia and thought to put on English wikipedia as well. I do not think there is any harm in it. It is going to increase a knowledge base. I searched Jewlia which I found on wiki- svenska and not on eng-wiki. I think it is not violating the policy of wikipedia in any way and hence should not be deleted. burdak 16:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you hope the article will be like in its final form? I am concerned that it will never be anything more than a one-liner. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete primarily based on the fact that this article is not in any way verifiably sourced, so it does violate that policy. Beyond that, I don't see the purpose of numerous individual articles on gotras that just say "X is a gotra of the Jat Clan". List of Jat clans seems to sum that statement up quite nicely and at least to me makes the individual articles completely unecessary. In the case of particular gotras that have made a significant contribution to society (that can of course be sourced), perhaps an individual article can be created. I don't see any common sense purpose for individual articles right now, though I am willing to consider reasons why this should stay.--Isotope23 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete totally per Isotope. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 19:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I saw a few of these while new page patrolling a couple days ago. This one is typical of those I saw. The whole package can go, either by prod or by a group nom. Exclude from a group nom any that have real content, give those their own nominations. Sometimes a clan/kinship line is noteworthy, or at least partially noteworthy, as this AFD shows, though the eventual result of the AFD was to rewrite the article based on the noteworthy role within the line. GRBerry 02:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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.