Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam Rajput

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 keep. per WP:HEY, and keep open the possibility of a merger with Gautam Khanzada that can be discussed on the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 07:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Rajput

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

Proposing deletion as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just to save the time of those unfamiliar with the subject area, please note that sources from or before the British Raj era are not considered to be reliable, nor is the "states" series of The People of India (which plagiarises those sources) or the joshuaproject website. Similarly, there is a long-standing consensus that caste-affiliated websites, such as indianrajputs.com, are not reliable, mainly due to their POV-pushing nature. Obviously, open wikis such as jatland.com fail WP:RS also. This probably is not an exhaustive list of problematic sources but it's a start - Johnuniq did suggest at a recent AfD that I should create something, perhaps in userspace, for this purpose - consider this as a part of what will be that.

FWIW, I can find mentions of this community, so the issue is likely to be one of whether those mentions are (a) reliable and (b) more than would be considered a "passing mention". On that I am at present undecided. - Sitush (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. I've expanded the thing slightly. While the expansion is indeed a series of passing mentions, I can also see numerous snippets of sources from the 1960s and later which, because they are snippets, I am not prepared to use. Doubtless, someone could get access to them. I have a strong feeling that this community converted to Islam during the Mughal period. - Sitush (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think Gautam Khanzada is the same community. That article is almost entirely sourced to Raj era gazetteers that have long been considered unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending further revision. I would be reluctant to delete an article on a community unless we had conclusive reasons that there were no sources that could establish notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. The content Sitush added fails WP:SIGCOV which says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.". I question how anyone could think the citations mentioned pass this bar. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on non-notable topic. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been to a good library and checked the >100 snippet view results that show using Google Books? - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sitush, with the caveats on questionable reliability of some sources they stated, I agree that there is likely enough to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references in the article which in aggregate satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Here's one I added: Muzaffar Alam (1998). "Aspects of Agrarian Uprisings in North India in the Early Eighteenth Century". In Muzaffar Alam; Sanjay Subrahmanyam (eds.). The Mughal State 1526-1750. Oxford University Press. p. 461-463. ISBN 978-0195652253. which discusses the grants to the clan, the growing military strength in the region, the conversion of the chief to Islam after a failed plot and the founding of communities, markets and construction of improvements such as a canal by his sons and descendants. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:16, 27 October 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.