Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toor

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. Der yck C. 20:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toor

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

Fails WP:GNG. In all my years of looking, the only sort-of reliable source I have found which mentions this community is this, which is basically a passing mention in a list. According to that source, it isn't even a major gotra but rather a sub-gotra. Redirecting to Banjara won't really work because I am sure that, as a sub-gotra, the thing does exist across various castes rather than just one (yes, this is WP:OR but it is based on a lot of experience).

This was de-PRODed. The unfortunately-named Arb (talk · contribs) showed a lack of clue when pushing the WP:ARS agenda. I left a note here, after recently leaving this one. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Sitush's analysis, I see no evidence that this is a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have added three references. The history of the article and its talk page is also worth a gander. -Arb. (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are unreliable (an bigoted, casteist open wiki, a mirror of ourselves etc) and will be removed. Your own history with ARS is worth a gander. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That calmer heads may prevail, the references were:

https://www.jatland.com/home/Toor

https://www.academia.edu/1092421/Deeper_Roots_Of_The_Gill_Bhatti_Sidhu_Brar_Toor_and_Related_Jat_and_Rajput_Clans

http://demojatt.weebly.com/major-muslim-jatt-clane.html

None are obvious mirrors of the the current Wikipedia article.-Arb. (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance you could read WP:RS? Jatland.com is an open wiki and often mirrors us; demojatt is a mirror of Jatland content (even the formatting makes that clear) and in any event nothing on weebly is likely to carry much weight; academia.edu is obviously SPS and we do not use sources affiliated with the caste. FWIW, the weebly thing looks like an old version of Tribes and clans of the Pothohar Plateau.

I thought Davidson/Colonel Warden was bad but this is ridiculous. Will I have to review all of your recent contributions? There seems possibly to be a WP:CIR issue here and I'm considering asking that you be topic banned from deletion procedures because this is not the first instance. You're wasting my time and everyone else's. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at the references.

The Jatland article is 15,500 bytes, ours 856; can't possibly be a mirror.
The Demojatt content is completely different from it.
The academia.edu article is apparently well referenced; see its bibliography. Also, kindly link the Wikipedia policy banning the use of "sources affiliated with the caste".

And cut out the ad hominem attacks; Prod and AfD are mature processes; they exist for good reasons and work well for the most part. -Arb. (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the jatland article was a mirror of this WP article, nor does a mirror have to reflect the most current WP version of any article. Get it into your head that Jatland is a bloody open wiki, that Demojatt is an obvious case and that WP:CONSENSUS applies with regard to so-called family histories (see, for example, sanskritisation - they make them up all the time). You know nowt about this subject and clearly do not want to learn! - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare, say, this at jatland from 2011 -The Aheer have two theories of their origin. Some claim descent from Qutub Shah, who is also the ancestor of the Awan tribe, while other connect themselves with the ... etc with the Demojatt source. Then look at us in 2010. You might also want to check the Jatland editor's name, since someone bearing the same name has been an absolute pain on Wikipedia, for a variety of reasons relating to caste-warrior POV and copyright. (There is another of similar propensity in the mix - WALTHAM2). - Sitush (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there are no reliable secondary sources to be found for this. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk, lacking WP:RS. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 21 April 2015 (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.