Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaddu

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. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaddu

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

Can't locate any reliable sources with regards to this. At the time I PROD'd, I asked on IRC if any editors familiar with Indian topics could check for sources, and the editor I spoke to (can't recall the name a week later and don't have access to logs currently) didn't locate any either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe we have come to the conclusion that many of these caste/clan stubs are non notable. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are a substantial number of articles on small castes, they should probably be merged into a single more general article. However, if no sources can be found on the topic at all, delete. bd2412 T 20:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem with that approach is there are rarely any reliable sources about those smaller castes/clans, so merging them doesn't solve the verifiability problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 26 November 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.