Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab Chiefs

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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Chiefs[edit]

Article violates WP:NOT#INFO. The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article. Article does not mention why any of these people are notable. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep don't hate me because I find it WP:USEFUL. JJL (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly states why these people are notable, viz that they had great wealth and influence. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, not that I can imagine what this particular directory might even be good for. These village headmen of the 1860s were not notable for anything other than a mention in—what was effectively—a British (colonial government) directory. As headmen, they would have been influential among their tribe, and they would have represented tribal property, but they almost certainly did not have "great wealth and influence" (emphasis mine) as has been suggested. The sole source of the "Punjab Chiefs" directory is a report of the kind that that were made all the time, and all over the British Empire. These reports of inter-tribal (read inter-familial) relationships/rivalries were made because, if united, local tribes could be a hassle to British interests. To play off one tribe against another, one had to know the relationship between the two. The WP article is just the product of that hum-drum colonial divide-and-conquer politicking, tabulated as a directory, and patently failing to be about Punjab Chiefs. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a very valuable article containing information on key political Punjabi leaders during the period of the British Empire in Punjab. Very historical, very valuable and very notable. However, it needs a good clean up and also if the editor who began article adds more information to it to make it more valuable from the books you used. It has the potential to be a article with great historical and history preservation article. Good work, some of the names are very hard to find due them only being in old books, this info impossible to find on internet. Please add more info from books you used to make it more valuable.--Trv93 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article serves the purpose of a reference for historians studying the history of the Punjab during the colonial period of British India .in relation to Punjab chiefs , their family backgrounds , clan , and tribes .

Robert Montgomery (administrator) who commissioned the book, himself served as Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab a position of prime political significance during this historical period . The significance of this article as a reference point to this book and period may also be valued from what one the authors of this book Charles Francis Massy has to say in the preface. :-

“I was asked “ to write a business –like book of reference for District and Administrative Officers , studying brevity and eschewing minute detail .”These instructions I have obeyed at the sacrifice of much interesting matter which came under my hand. The book will not attract the general reader: but it will probably be found useful as one of reference, and every endeavor has been made to secure an accurate record of modern facts affecting the families. “

Having said this I would like to add that there is scope for improvement in every article including this one and as such all pages may be considered work in progress.

The reason cited that for deletion has perplexed me viz “The article simply lists chiefs of Punjab, none of whom have their own article.” If not having an article on Wikipedia is fair ground for deletion , we may as well assume that wikipedia has already touched upon all subjects worthy of inclusion , I find this logic abhorrent .Cheers Intothefire (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of quite possibly notable people. It's actually more of a list (perhaps should be renamed), which is allowed to be rather similar to a directory. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (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.