Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikarwar

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. Will userfy upon request. czar 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sikarwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but always hard with non-English language topics. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least Draft instead as Books actually found a few noticeable links, nothing particularly outstanding to suggest a considerably enhanced article but enough to confirm its existence, and this would of course need any necessary familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @SwisterTwister: please could you provide some of those links from Books because I can't spot any, except for unreliable Raj stuff and WP mirrors (Hepaestus Books etc). I'm incline to say delete based on my own attempts to research this over several years but I'll hold off until you respond. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - At best, if the article is still not improvable, I found a few links at Books ("Sikwarwar Rajput clan") but as I said, I'm willing to delete and then Draft if needed for a better article is available later. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, @SwisterTwister: I can see nothing using that search. GBooks doesn't return the same results - it depends on your location etc - and that is why I asked if you could elaborate because then I could look at those results using other methods. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, if those results you saw were from the British Raj era then they are not acceptable. The Raj writers were useless and basically took for granted whatever they were told by whomsoever told them. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 22 June 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.