Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhateja

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. I see consensus that the sources identified do not provide SIGCOV or are otherwise unreliable. Owen× ☎ 22:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhateja

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable subject, lack of Wp:SIGCOV. Poorly sourced and promotional content. Zuck28 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Hinduism, Sikhism, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on it's current condition, I support removing it for a lack of any solid sourcing. I looked at adding a mention in the list of clans on the Jats article, but there wasn't even enough solid sourcing for that. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
news sources are mentioned which are solid Sardar sahab the great (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
news sources are tagged which are solid Sardar sahab the great (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are news sources mentioned in the references that according to my knowledge are not considered poorly sourced. Sardar sahab the great (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are they reliable sources?
Zuck28 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source evaluation: #1 goes to "myheritage.com" which doesn't seem reliable, #2 says nothing about the clan other than this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #3 is both unreliable and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #4 is both unreliable and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja #5 is both unreliable and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #6 says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #7 is a personal website and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #8 is promotional and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #9 is a LinkedIn CV and says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #11 says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja, #12 says nothing about the clan, only that this individual has the surname of Bhateja. As it stands, the article utterly fails WP:SIGCOV. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. 2 to #12 are only for details about the known people, they are not for clan. #1 is for clan.
Well i am adding more references for clan Sardar sahab the great (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New sources were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardar sahab the great (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
End of discussion: result keep. Sardar sahab the great (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for an admin to close the discussion. Zuck28 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BASIC and I can't think of any suitable merge target. Not that there is much here that is worth merging to another article under WP:ATD. Java Hurricane 19:43, 28 March 2025 (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.