Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahobiya

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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 00:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahobiya[edit]

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

The similar main article namely Banaphar is already existing along with the specific articles like Alha and udal. Is this article really needed, contents of which are not supported by Releable Source. MahenSingha (Talk) 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is only a one sentence entry lacking any source material. I feel it could be deleted.TH1980 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mahensingha: Why is this submitted to AfD and not merged straight away, as was discussed and more or less agreed to on the article's talk page? Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any responses to Smmurphy (talk · contribs)'s comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Second official relist; Smmurphy's comment should be replied to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 20:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no refs with content to be merged. --Rogerx2 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe, article can be kept but need to work and FIXIT. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter lack of sources, none on page an google is blank [1] although people with this surname do turn up. This is one of the many AfDs I have seen for brief, unsourced articles on sub-clans in the sub-continent. Certainly we can have articles on small ethnic groups, clans, sub clans, even the Hatfields and the McCoys, but we can only keep such articles if they are well-sourced. Nothing worth merging or redirecting in this unsourced article. In fact, merging is against policy because there are no sources, ergo, no confirmation that the term itself is at all related to any merge target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (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.