Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhokar

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--regentspark (comment) 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar[edit]

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial, significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its funny that the villages that these people live in could probably have articles under WP:GEOLAND but the people as a group may not, could all the Jat people articles be redirected to a 'List of Jat clans' article instead? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make and Redirect to a general Jat clans list~~ The suggestion from above is actually fairly sound and there exist some vague sources for these clans in the Wiki I found: [1]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescinding my vote: it was pointed out the Jat Wiki's sources are unusable. It might be best to delete ~~and then redirect to Jat.~~ Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding strikethrough to that last bit, because Chhokar isn't a viable redirect, for it's a part of two different groups of people. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is far from the first time that people have suggested creating a List of Jat clans. In fact, it has been suggested at least twice in AfDs during this month. Those AfDs ended with deletion, as this one should. I'll try to find the relevant details but am not around much at the moment due to poor health. Basically, this alleged clan fails GNG and we don't collect unverifiable trivia, nor are we a directory etc. There is a reason why that list has itself previously been deleted and has languished, with an increasing number of redlinks, in someone's userspace without ever being worked upon. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, Mr Magoo, the wiki you found (jatland) is notoriously bad. That's why we had/have an edit filter in place for it. - Sitush (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: sigh, and we should also not redirect titles to Jat people where the title is not reliably verifiable. Castes are artificial constructs at the best of times - this post by me explains some of the issues and, as I already explained on your talk page, we do not rely on caste affiliated sources, nor Raj sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why use the word caste? We're essentially dealing with clans or families here, not the broader caste system. They have some notability as there are sources covering them. We have a newspaper describing the Chatha and Cheema clans as subgroups of Jat. I don't see how this doesn't make them viable redirects. In the case of Chhokar it might not be as viable, because it's a subgroup of two peoples and the second source seems to refer to Gujar and not Jat. Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand the relationship between caste, clan, gotra, jati, varna etc then I think you need to read up quite a bit more before jumping to conclusions, sorry. I can't provide a primer here but our articles on the various meta aspects should suffice, even though often quite poor. Similarly, if you do not understand how Indian newspapers work when it comes to reporting caste-related matters (especially self-promotion, reliance on Raj ethnologies etc) ... It's a complex topic, I grant you, but it has been discussed at length over many years: I am merely reiterating the outcomes of those numerous discussions. I'm not saying that you are one but even the most rabid of inclusionists have repeatedly failed to achieve the end which you seek. For example, just because something is mentioned in passing etc doesn't mean we should acknowledge it, and especially not if there are concerns that Wikipedia may be being used to legitimise off-wiki claims. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's all great, but I'd prefer if you were to actually link some of these discussions or sources stating something like this. The one "discussion" you linked to happened at your talk page, after DGG had reverted your removal of an article's contents and had just few paragraphs of your opinion on the matter, again without sources or any official noticeboard discussion. The other person supporting your stance had much better reasoning of lack of sources. And lastly, caste seems to be used as a synonym for family; even though to a westerner it brings to mind the hierarchical caste system. There's nothing wrong with articles about family lines, and it's not the same as a "caste system." Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. You really do not understand what caste is, do you? Part-exogamous, part-endogamous groupings of variable number but running into the thousands and based on, well, take your pick: birth, occupation, social control, aspiration, etc. Then again, in classical theory, a merely four groups known as Varna. The articles are there, so maybe go read them? As for nothing being wrong with articles about family lines, that rather depends on whether the family is notable, and we are not a genealogy website. I wouldn't dream of dragging out a discussion in an AfD about, say, medicine because I know next to nothing about the subject; the same might be a wise approach for you until you are clued up. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've already covered this, and hierarchical castes is seemingly not what we were dealing in with the other two as they covered families with the surname. The Dawn article especially to that effect. If it weren't solely biological but some by-marriage or other kind of grouping, the other two would still be worthy of a redirect, as a cited subgroup of the Jat people. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:33, 31 August 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.