Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baghal Rajput

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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baghal Rajput[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is a state of this name, and at least one raja of the Puar or Panwar who was called Baghal, but otherwise there appear to be no reliable sources that discuss this alleged clan. I suspect it is just another Indian surname.

The article was PRODed but that appears to have been contested. Sitush (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very difficult to make anything of this. I suspect there are some language issues here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the AFD so I apologize if I've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The Puar or Panwar or Parmara or alike are already listed on wikipedia among Rajputs. Observation by Sitush finds its correct place on the article Parmara. A separate article for Baghal seems to have no scope at all.Sitush is right, the surname is in use in India by a non-Rajput community. -- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 18:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some sourcing can be provided to verify the notability of this topic or extend its content beyond eight words, this is as clear-cut a case as one ever gets on AfD. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I may be wrong, but I thing it's a duplicate of Baghela (also unreferenced) using a different transliteration. That makes this a CSD A10 candidate, with an AfD to follow for Baghela. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to be sure, given the lack of info/sourcing in both articles. There are many similar-but-arguably-different groups, eg: Bhutta and Bhutto, Soomro and Soomra. Baghela does at least appear to exist, although whether it passes GNG might still be moot. - Sitush (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. However, there was one princely state of Baghal - as already said by nominator. Jethwarp (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (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.