Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jat Sikh clans of the Lahore Division

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. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Sikh clans of the Lahore Division[edit]

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

This is just a transcription of primary sources, being various Raj census returns. Since those censuses were themselves unreliable, there seems to be little point in retaining the article itself except perhaps as a historical curiosity. Sitush (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These statistics are outdated. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedia should cover topics of historical value even if they are outdated or even incorrect (such as the earth is flat concept?). If the nom feels a clean up is needed to reflect that the censuses were not reliable (backed by a source), the right thing to do would be to move the article to a name like "xyz censuses of British Raj". The article may discuss the factual correctness of the information for NPOV. The census itself is notable; correctness and notability are not mutually inclusive. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have articles for the Indian census but this doesn't "fit". Really, what is the point in keeping a list that is effectively a transcription of a primary source? This one is no different to the seven or eight others that have been deleted over the last 18 months. Some boilerplate from past AfD noms is "Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Jat_clans_of_Lahore_Division and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Rajput_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division. As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same." The census year and the community that the creator is listing may change but the problem remains the same: the numbers are poor, based on scientific racism etc and not necessarily related to the purported community, then or now. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they are poorly created articles, what I mean is they could be put under a new title to discuss their historical incorrectness that you claim. A good idea would be to ask an admin to get all the deleted articles and merge into one under a blanket neutral name.. the fact that the census happened makes it a widely noted event of its time and makes it notable and of historical value. If another article covers the topic, I can also support a merge & redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2014 (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.