Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Jat clans of 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Jat clans of Lahore Division[edit]

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." 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. A similarly-sourced and formatted article from the same creator was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division. Sitush (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Sitush, I for one am sort of on the fence on this one. Could you perhaps comment on the article in light of WP:LSC? And do you think this falls into WP:INDISCRIMINATE? This might help clarify the article's notability or appropriate-ness (word?) for myself and others who are 50-50 about the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo:, I think the lead's own acknowledgement of meaninglessness pretty much sums it up. The list fails LSC at the most basic level because the sources are not reliable, as noted in my nomination and as discussed at the prior AfD for a related list that used the same format, criteria and type of source. That unreliability has been the consensus for a long time now and can be traced at least as far back as James Tod. The Raj administrators knew very little about caste and tried to impose their misunderstandings on the populace as a means of control post-1857; their views on the shapes and sizes of noses, skin colour charts etc were arguably even more bizarre and their slavish acceptance of the biassed advice of Brahmins didn't help either. The combination of these and other things led to a jostling for position among the population that has subsequently been identified as sanskritisation. The list is an example of systemic failure that affected, at that time, around 700 million people; and that failure is a (perhaps the) primary cause of all the present-day problems relating to caste, including those on Wikipedia that led to the introduction of WP:GS/Caste.

Yes, it also falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE: it is verifiable only to its unreliable and highly POV-oriented primary sources. And because of those, it is also statistically confusing. Any notability is as an example of Raj crassness and such issues are better covered in other articles in a more rounded manner, as indeed they are. One day, I may even write an article specifically on the subject of the crassness - it is well-documented - but it won't be this thing. Sitush (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's merely a list, lists serve as a glossary or index, wouldn't hurt to keep it, shouldn't lose that information. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad, we had this discussion before and you participated in it. Information that is based on unreliable sources is not in fact information that we retain on Wikipedia. As last time, you seem not to understand the requirements of notability and reliable sources. Perhaps you should try to read the policies, as has also been suggested to you before. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally, I do lean toward delete now based on the reply from Sitush. The lead admits that the census isn't even reliable, so even using it as a source in the census of India article after this article's deletion might not work out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nestwiki (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 12 March 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.