Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rajput clans of Lahore Division in 1911

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. Nakon 04:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rajput clans of Lahore Division in 1911[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 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 Rajputs." 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. Numeros similarly-sourced and formatted articles from the same creator have been deleted for these reasons, eg: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division. Sitush (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 ^(Talk) 05:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not be mere statistics. This is something more suited to a census report or atlas, but not to an encyclopedia. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTSTATSBOOK, and because the information is acknowledged in the article itself to be potentially inaccurate. We do not need an article for every statistical table and chart in the world. GAB^gab 14:51, 26 May 2016 (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.