Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janwar 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janwar Rajput[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009 (WP:V), written in a confusing, peacocky and unencyclopedic style that does not make much sense as a whole. A Google Books search indicates that this is or was indeed an Indian Rajput, and as such likely notable, but the current content is so useless that the article would need to be rewritten from scratch, or possibly redicted to some related other article. Sandstein 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews and gbooks has passing mentions. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator indicates this is "likely to be notable," as THIS ARTICLE from the Kashmir News Network website further somewhat indicates. Is it a bad article? Yes. That's not what's being decided here, however. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janwar Rajput gets one mention in whole article. where is there evidence of significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely nothing here worth salvaging - horrible prose written by what I assume are mostly non-native speakers. "Barier Sah then in 1414 took up his residence in village Ikauna in Bahraich and thus became the founder of the famous house, which has given the rulers to many estates in the districts of Bahraich and Gonda.KARNVEER SINGH , GRAND SON OF SRI PUTTU SINGH TELLS ABOUT THE BRAVITY OF THEIR ANCESTORS.THEY ARE BASICALLY TOO AGGRESSIVE IN NATURE, BUT ALSO A GOOD FRIEND" pretty much sums this up. Claims that the article can be improved (such as the opinion expressed by Carrite above) run contrary to the fact that this has been tagged as unreferenced for over a year with no attention paid, making these opinions seem completely blind to reality, more of a mantra than anything approaching a valid argument, especially considering the AfD itself has run for nearly half a month and not a single edit has been made since the nom's AfD tagging. Counting back fifteen edits places us at 2009. That's not a lot of passing activity. Perhaps, counter-intuitive though it may seem, a redlink may end up inspiring someone to create a decent article. One can claim this is improvable all they want, but the history shows otherwise. Tags have been tried and failed, enough's enough. Badger Drink (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2011 (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.