Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sooch

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sooch

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

Disputed PROD - Can find no sign of notability of "Sooch" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From Googling, I infer that the article is trying to say that "Sooch" is a surname which originated from that village, but this is mostly supposition on my part. I was unable to find anything that would source the article or satisfy WP:GNG in a general Google search, or in books or news. As it stands, the article's just a dicdef; the name doesn't appear to be very common so it's hard to see the article becoming more than that. Dricherby (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not know that the article was previously deleted through a PROD! Article fails WP:GNG →B music ian 10:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above it's not even clear whether this is a group of people from a village or a surname. Either way, the village hasn't even got a page and there is no assertion of notability. I wonder whether it even might be a test edit? Bob talk 12:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a test edit - the author has created it twice, and has been trying to include it in Template:Gotras of Jats -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete after a google search came up with this Jatt last names Being a surname clearly does not deserve a separate article on its own-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:10, 14 May 2012 (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.