Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuntal (2nd nomination)

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. L Faraone 05:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntal[edit]

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

Don't think a gotra of a caste is notable enough. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very improperly sourced; in fact, what exactly is being cited isn't clear. And I'm talking about the English text in the sources. No way this can pass WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From the current article - half in Hindi(?) and the rest very poorly translated - it's pretty much impossible to come to any judgement at all. And the Google results are all over the place - there's no way that more than a smallish minority of them are going to be relevant, but some just might be. However, I notice that, while the current article is very new (it was apparently created less than 12 hours before being brought to AfD), an article with this title (and, by the look of the discussion, on the same topic) was apparently kept at AfD in 2007 - but then PRODded in 2010, and deleted despite the rules about not PRODding articles previously sent to AfD. It would almost certainly be easier to make a judgement this time round if we could see that article and its history - while that article was probably not very good, it was almost certainly better than this one, and might give enough of a clue on what to look for in the GHits when trying to decide if there is the possibility of an article here. PWilkinson (talk) 12:59, 6 May 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, Courcelles 04:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we should undelete the previous revisions and evaluate them since the previous article was incorrectly deleted following the prod request. I've had a look at the old content from January 2010, and while it was much better intelligible than the current translation, it is about half as long and consists mainly of unexplained names of other sub-castes and ethnic groups or place names. The only reference mentioned there is "Digambar Singh Kuntal: Uttar Pradesh ke Madhyakalin Jatvans avam Rajya, Jat Samaj,Mathura". De728631 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Cluster **** is the only description that remotely fits this so called "article." The subject matter MIGHT be notable, but this article is beyond any hope of redemption. Delete it and start again from scratch or undelete the prior article. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 16 May 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.