Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangat clan

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mangat clan[edit]

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief description of clan found here and here. This book about the Jat people the clan belongs to also at least mentions the clan, possibly more but limited view on Google so I can't see the depth of coverage. postdlf (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first of the sources found by Postdlf is generally not considered to be reliable, and the last is written by a known oddball for whom we once had an article here that was deleted via AfD. B S Nijjar - the middle of those three links - is ok but says virtually nothing about this clan. These are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Alas, that tends to be the case with most clans of India: such articles are basically stub surname articles and the chances of improvement tend to be slight, even when appeals are made for reliable non-English sources. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sitush's reasoning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Subject might be notable but I can't find the sources to back that up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2013 (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.