Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahra clan

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. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mahra clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. 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 this simply regurgitate/plagiarise Raj sources. Sitush (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Failure of WP:GNG. 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. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 15:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 from):

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

Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Can they be the same as the Mair caste? One (Raj-era) source [1] equates the Mair with the Mera, and as far as I know Mera can be an alternative Panjabi spelling for Mehra. Uanfala (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All these alternate spellings seem like a bunch of WP:OR to me. That's going off your own phrasing in introducing them - it is full of maybes. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect After a quick 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 WP:CSC) something like List of Jat clans or List of Panjabi clans 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, Sitush and KCVelaga? Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually redirect caste things that lack sources, and a List of Jat clans 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 Bhumihar relationship to Brahmins.

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 various Raj "ethnologists" and they often make it clear that their output is considered useless, eg: H. H. Risley. If a source is unreliable then we don't use it, period. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, so List of Jat clans will be unworkable. Then we're still left with a regional grouping: List of Panjabi clans, is there any problem with that?

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 sources. The fact that some of these are unreliable is also part of the information we should provide. I think the long list at Spurious languages is an extreme example of what I have in mind. 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 Mehri people). Uanfala (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources I see in the google books results for the main spelling are: [2], [3], [4]. Uanfala (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with idea of creation of list with a title of List of Panjabi clans or like that, by Uanfala, because all the articles in the category have similar issues (notability, probably doesn't exist and/or exists ambiguously as per Sitush, no sources etc.) KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what I've already said, please see WP:NLIST. We can't have lists of non-notable entities. We already have List of Punjabi tribes, which in fact contains more clans than it does tribes and is a maintenance nightmare. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST 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 WP:CSC). Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSC explicitly says that notability may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles. And one of the scenarios it gives is when all the entries in a list fail the notability criteria. Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And it explicitly says other things, too. So less of the "generally", please. And read WP:V. 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. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now to Draft:Mahra clan. 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. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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 User:Sitush 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 Wikipedia article (even on a thing that may exist and may be notable) simply has to wait until the scholarship to support an article exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 22 July 2016 (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.