Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiwana

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 no consensus. Feel free to improve the content or renominate for deletion. SarahStierch (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiwana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is certainly used as a last name and there were various military regiments that used it also. However, there are no reliable sources that refer to the Tiwana as a clan. This is also impossible to redirect in a neutral manner because there are so many possible targets - see this. I doubt that turning this into a disambig page would be meaningful because the Tiwana element of those targets seems often to be of tangential relevance. Sitush (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Tiwana (surname) and dabify ~~, adding hatnotes to the city and village.~~ Ansh6 6 6 01:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss it as a surname? I've seen none and discussion in multiple sources is the whole point of GNG. I presume that you share the opinion that the present article cannot exist in its clan form? - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DABs don't need sources, and your linked search turned up mostly articles of people with surname of Tiwana, plus a city, a village, and an administrative district of some kind. Ansh6 6 6 03:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean turn it into a dab page, in which case we would not need hatnotes for any placenames. The problem is, there are no places that are usually called "Tiwana" - this is an exercise in inclusionism that solves no problem. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I think of it the "surname" part doesn't make too much sense, there are what 5 people and 3 places? I mean, yeah, I know it borders on completely useless, but the option does exist. I'll leave it up to some higher power to decide. Ansh6 6 6 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are this, or this of any use? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source is from the Raj period. Being the Japanese version of GBooks, I can't determine the author but it looks like it may be H. A. Rose, who has repeatedly been deemed unreliable. Your first is B S Nijjar, who has also been rubbished on several occasions and is cited by others even less often than Rose - not an academic publisher, unattributed copy/pastes from Raj works etc. (Admittedly, many of the citations for Rose relate to demonstrations of the warped Raj mindset rather than as some sort of oracle). Many of our stub articles relating to Indian communities have indeed originated from Raj studies: people such as LRBurdak (talk · contribs) and Waltham-somebody (sorry) who went through a phase of basically copying content from those books when creating new stub articles. IIRC, there is a massive copyright investigation going on at WP:CCI in relation to LRBurdak. - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. 2nd author is Ram Sarup Joon. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, I think that we had an article about Joon here at one point and it was deleted. But I can't spot where that happened! He was certainly discussed here. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 19 October 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, BusterD (talk) 04:26, 26 October 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, KTC (talk) 20:59, 6 November 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.